Amphibious Vehicle LARC V - Defense Technical Information Center

Amphibious Vehicle LARC V - Defense Technical Information Center

Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive
Theses and Dissertations
Thesis and Dissertation Collection
2004-12-09
Replacement design study for lighter
amphibious re-supply cargo 5 Ton,
amphibious vehicle LARC V
Kaczmarek, Ryszard B.
http://hdl.handle.net/10945/11051
REPLACEMENT DESIGN STUDY
FOR
LIGHTER AMPHIBIOUS RE-SUPPLY CARGO 5 TON
Amphibious Vehicle LARC V
•,
•.•
•
i......
•'".•:
Major Report in Partial Fulfillment of Requirement for M.E.O.E
Advisor: Prof. A. Mansour
Student: Ryszard B. Kaczmarek
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A
Approved for Public Release
Distribution Unlimited
University of California Berkeley
Ocean Engineering Interdisciplinary Graduate Group
December 9, 2004.
20060516027
ABSTRACT
This project examines LARC V, which is water and land interface vehicle
designed for support of amphibious operations (troops and cargo transport) in rivers and
protected waters. Vehicle's mission evolved to more stringent, involving amphibious
assault operations in the highly demanding surf zone, as well as support of the dive and
salvage operations. The age (35 years), and increasing requirements, including weight,
stability, range, speeds, and reliability dictated study on improvement or replacement of
the existing design. Research concentrates on conceptual study and development of
various options for presentation to the sponsor, U.S. Navy Ocean Facilities Program
(OFP), and the ultimate owner, U.S. Navy, Underwater Construction Teams.
"The very act of studying something may change it."
(Earl Babby)
*
Cover page photo represents LARC V, UCT Dive Platform [Ref. 8]
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...........................................................................................................................................
H
TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................................................
II
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES .....................................................................................................
IV
PROJECT PROPOSAL .........................................................................................................................
V
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................
1
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................
3
VEHICLE'S MISSION .............................................................................................................................
LARC - V CHARACTERISTICS ...............................................................................................................
OWNER'S REQUIREMENTS (UCT2 AND UCT1) ..................................................................................
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................
CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION ...........................................................................
3
5
6
9
10
LARC V AND AAAV COMPARISONS .............................................................................................
10
LARC V AND MODIFIED LARC MODELING .................................................................................... 12
LARC RESISTANCE AND POWER CALCULATIONS AND COMPARISONS ............................................... 13
DIVE PLATFORM CATAMARAN'(DPCAT) MODELING ...................................................................... 14
HULL CONNECTING BEAM ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................
15
DPCAT RESISTANCE AND POWER CALCULATIONS AND COMPARISONS ................................................ 27
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................
ACKNOWLEDGEM ENTS .......................................................................................................................
29
29
30
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................
32
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................
34
APPENDIX 1. VESSEL DESIGN ELEMENTS ..........................................................................................
APPENDIX 2. MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT (MTVR) ...............................................
APPENDIX 3. LARC V PHOTOS ...........................................................................................................
APPENDIX
4.
ALTERNATIVE VEHICLES
(AAAV, LARVX) .............................................................
APPENDIX 5. LARC V AND AAAV COMPARISON TABLE .................................................................
APPENDIX 6. AUTOSHIP MODELS OF LARC V AND MODIFIED LARC ..........................................
APPENDIX 7. LARCs' RESISTANCE & EFFECTIVE POWER CALCULATIONS ........................................
APPENDIX 8. LARC V AUTOSHIP MODEL TABLES OF CHARACTERISTICS .....................................
APPENDIX 9. LARC (1) AUTOSHIP MODEL TABLES OF CHARACTERISTICS ........................................
APPENDIX 10. LARC V CHARACTERISTICS .........................................................................................
APPENDIX 11. DPCAT MODEL CHARACTERISTICS ..........................................................................
APPENDIX 12. DPCAT RESISTANCE & EFFECTIVE POWER CALCULATIONS ...........................................
35
36
37
39
41
42
50
63
70
79
88
94
111..
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
* COVER PAGE PHOTO REPRESENTS LARC V, UCT DIVE PLATFORM [REF. 81 .....................
TABLE 2.1 EXISTING LARC V PARAMETRIC DESCRIPTION [REF. 3 & 7] ...............................
FIGURE 4.1 VEHICLE CONCEPT ...................................................................................................
FIGURE 4.2 BOXED GIRDER CROSS SECTION ...............................................................................
FIGURE 4.3 BEAM FIXED AT ONE END AND FREE TO DEFLECT VERTICALLY, NOT TO
R OT AT E ......................................................................................................................................
FIGURE 4.4 CANTILEVER BEAM WITH CONCENTRATED LOAD AT ONE END ....................
FIGURE 4.5 OVERHANGING BEAM WITH CONCENTRATED LOAD AT THE END .................
FIGURE 4.6 DEFLECTIONS FOR OVERHANGING BEAM WITH CONCENTRATED LOAD ..........
FIGURE 4.7 BEAM SUPPORTS .......................................................................................................
FIGURE 4.8 CONSIDERED BEAM DISTRIBUTED LOADING ......................................................
FIGURE 4.9 ALTERNATIVE BEAM DISTRIBUTED LOADING ....................................................
FIGURE 4.10 ISOTROPIC PLATE CONFIGURATION ....................................................................
FIGURE 2. MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT (MTVR)[REF. 9] ..........................
FIGURE 3, LARC V'S FRONTAL TRANSVERSE AREA ............................................................
FIGURE 4. LARC V PROPELLER AND GROUND CLEARANCE .................................................
FIGURE 5. LARC V'S DECK CLUSTER DURING DIVEOPERATIONS .....................................
FIGURE 6. LARC V WATERBORNE ON 18 DECEMBER, 2003 ...................................................
FIGURE 7. MARINE CORPS AAAV,PORT. DIMENSIONS [REF.4] ..............................................
FIGURE 8. MARINE CORPS AAAV FRONTAL DIMENSIONS ...................................................
FIGURE 9. MARINE CORPS AAAV PLANNING SPEED WITH BOW PLANE [REF.4] ..............
FIGURE 10. FORMER UCT2 LARC X
.........................................
TABLE 2. PARAMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF LARC V VERSUS AAAV ..............................
FIGURE 11. LARC V AUTOSHIP MODEL AND OFFSETS LINES ...............................................
FIGURE 12. LARC V AUTOSHIP MODEL AND CONTOUR LINES ............................................
FIGURE 13. LARC V AUTOSHIP MODEL VERSUS MODIFIED LARC .......................................
FIGURE 14. MODIFIED LARC M ODEL .........................................................................................
FIGURE 15. MODIFIED LARC MODEL AND CONTOUR LINES .................................................
FIGURE 16. MODIFIED LARC MODEL AND OFFSETS LINES ...................................................
FIGURE 17. CONTOUR LINES OF LARC V AND MODIFIED LARC MODELS ..........................
FIGURE 18. AUTOSHIP MODELS OF LARC V VERSUS MODIFIED LARC (1) .........................
TABLE 3. AUTOSHIP RESISTANCE AND EFFECTIVEPOWER CALCULATION INPUT ......
FIGURE A12.1 STEPS IN MODELING DIVE PLATFORM-CATAMARAN (DPCAT) ...................
FIGURE A12.2 CONCEPT OF DIVEPLATFORM CATAMARAN (DPCAT) ..................................
FIGURE A12.3 CONCEPT OF DIVE PLATFORM CATAMARAN (DPCAT) ..................................
FIGURE A12.4 CONCEPT OF VARIABLE BEAM ........................................................................
FIGURE A12.5 DPCAT LAND MODE ...........................................................................................
FIGURE A12.6 DPCAT CONTOUR LINES ....................................................................................
FIGURE A13.1 SAMPLE DPCAT AUTOPOWER CALCULATIONS INPUT ..................................
H
5
16
16
17
18
19
20
20
20
21
23
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
88
88
88
89
89
89
94
iv
PROJECT PROPOSAL
Title:
U.S. Navy, Underwater Construction Team (UCT) LIGHTER, AMPHIBIOUS, RESUPPLY, CARGO, 5-TON (LARC-V) REPLACEMENT DESIGN STUDY
Project Description:
The study concentrates on redesign of the LARC V (Lighter, Amphibious,
Replenishment, Cargo, 5-Tons), currently used by the U.S. Navy Underwater
Construction Team (UCT) as a platform for diving operations. The U.S. Navy's Naval
Facilities Engineering Command (FACENGCOM) initiated this project in order to
replace existing aged vehicle. The strategy of this project is a preliminary trade off study
of technical approach, owner's requirements study (including a field tfips to the UCT 1
and 2), and two alternative improvement and conceptual designs.
The following
elements constitute the planned scope of the project:
1. Development of owner's requirements, based on trade off studies of amphibious crafts
and similar systems, and interviews with operators (including test-drive).
2. Selection of conceptuol technical approaches and alternative solutions.
3. Design of vessel principle characteristics ýsuch as weight estimate, curves of form, lines
drawing, inboard profile and deck arrangements, capacity plan, machinery arrangements,
structural midship section, -speed and power analysis, propulsion plant trade-off and fuel
endurance calculation, electrical load analysis, sea keeping analysis, area/volume
summary, manning estimate, major HM&E, and cost analysis.
Goals:
The ultimate goal is to develop an attractive design of amphibious vehicle in support of
diving operations or improvement of performance of existing craft on land and at sea in
support of diving and amphibious operations. However, in order to better accommodate
the owner based on wide and unclear set of missions, an improved existing design and
alternative conceptual design are goals of this study.
v
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
The subject study was initiated by COMNAVFACENGCOM.
The design of
Lighter, Amphibious, Re-Supply, Cargo, 5-Ton (LARC V) amphibian craft was
performed in the late 1950s by U.S. Army Transportation Research Command. Initial
requirement was for use in rivers and protected waters in support of amphibious
operations.
Those requirements evolved to surf zone salvage, and in case of UCT,
additional requirements such as support of underwater construction and various survey
diving operations.
Such evolution imposed intolerable additional stresses on the
vehicle's :components, beyond design performance parameters-
Additionally, the
required range of the vehicle and land and waterborne speed are increased beyond the
limits of existing performance, where pre-boating ofLARC Vis required to get it ashore.
The maintenance cost and reliability of the vehicle also suffer as systems such as traction,
power transmission, and vehicle handling' components wear out or' fail' at 'increased rates.
The cost also increase due to age of the parts,, which no longer are obtainable by direct
purchase and have to be custom manufactured or refurbished by' specialized units. ,These
issues make supportability and operational values of LARC 'V questionable.
In'order to minimize failures and improve operating parameters a modifications or'
new vehicle concept seem unavoidable. As a result, a preliminary research and a field
trip to the Underwater Construction Team Two and One were conducted to review
vehicle's components aqd develop a list of potential modifications to improve LAK's
performance.
The comparison study was performed based on the existing redesign of the
Marine Corps Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV) to Advanced Assault Amphibious
Vehicle (AAAV), where parameters such as speed, and range were increased from
identical for' existing LARC V -to parameters similar to expected from new LARC. The
AAV redesign was chosen for its hull parameters and size are similar to LARC V. This
study allowed rough estimate of expected power increase in order to achieve upgraded
requirements of speed and range.
In addition, the existing LARC V and modified vehicle were modeled using the
AUTOSHIP software. In case of the modified LARC V, the wheels were covered by
1
hydrodynamic appendages and hull was faired in the bow section. The length, beam,
draft, weight, and other parameters were maintained constant for comparison analysis.
The hydrostatic parameters and hull forms-were calculated in order to input those
values into AUTOPOWER software for further tradeoff analysis. The above steps started
the conceptual design, which was continued and expanded in the second part of this
project, where resistance and effective powers for various scenarios and hulls was
evaluated using AUTOPOWER program.
Finally, alternative conceptual design of demi-hull, Dive Platform Catamaran
(DPCAT), was developed and analyzed, including resistance and effective power
calculations.
Topic familiarization however was the first step of this study in order to help
understand the owner's requirements, select technical approach, and perform trade off
studies with alternative solutions (designs).
Various literary sources (see bibliography) on the subject of-existing craft systems
and similar systems under development were reviewed. The UCT 2 and UCT I were
visited, including operator / maintenance and management personnel interviews, and test
drive was performed on 18 December 2003. Numerous photos were taken and relevant
technical manuals were reviewed. Findings are discussed in the following section.
2
Chapter 2. BACKGROUND
In 1956 the original LARC V was designed by the US Army Transportation
Research Command with the mission to provide lighter service for cargo and troops to
and from the beach.
The Ingersoll Kalamazoo Division of Borg-Warner built the
prototype in 1958 and the initial- production followed in 1962 by LaTourneauWestinghouse, and later by Consolidated Diesel Electric Corporation.
Almost one
thousand' units weighting' 16,000 [lbs] were manufactured to carry 10,000 [ibs] of cargo
at 10 [mph] waterborne. In the process of operation it was discovered that vehicles were
of great value in providing assistance to stranded vehicles, 'and design was' modified
(including replacement qf gasoline engine. with diesel one), thus increasing empty weight
to 20,000 [lbs] and limiting weight of cargo to, 6,000, [lbs] '(-3 Tones). ' Effectively the
maximum waterborne speed was.,further reduced. In addition, the reliability of the drive
train was reduced, as it was-not 'adjusted to 8 cylinder Cummins'"V-903C diesel 'engine
rated at 295 BHP, and new surf-zone 'salvage operations, which included' towing of
disabled vehicles. The stability of the vehicle was also threatened by large swell in the
surf-zone.
Vehicle's Mission
The current and anticipated missions of the LARC include: salvage operations in
the surf zone; laying tag lines for towing disabled or broached crafts; removing obstacles;
placing navigation aids; providing towing services; extracting broached landing craft;
transporting personnel (troops, POW's, refugees and casualties); surf zone firefighting;
utilization as a diving platform; assisting with LCU ramp closure; assisting with
hydrographic operations; dewatering assistance; rescue services; and other unanticipated
services.
The craft is capable (not necessarily designed) to traverse sand and coral
beaches, negotiate through a surf of 10-foot breakers, unimproved roads (off-road
terrain), and operate in tropic and arctic climates. The engine is located in the stem over
the hull tunnel (nozzle) propeller. It drives forward to a centrally located transfer case,
3
which transmits power to the all wheels and the propeller shaft. Vehicle's suspension is
rigid based on 18.00X24-12 tires providing the only shock absorption and road contact
control. The modification weight -increase decreased cargo capacity from 10,000 pound
to approximately 6,000 [lbs] payload (3 short tons).
The hull tunnel, fitted with nozzle, hoists the propeller and its size is limited by
the ground clearance.
Some critical factors considered in this study and requiring improvement
in order to satisfy the above listed requirements include increased speed when waterborne
and on land (maintaining convoy integrity); increased reliability of the land-pulling
capability (excessive stress on drive train and 'strain on structural integrity); increased
stability (survivability in the surf zone).
The following Table 2.1 represents the general characteristics of the existing
LARC V, including engine, electrics, overall dimensions, cargo space dimensions and
capacity, ground clearance, and various operational parameters.
4
LARC - V Characteristics
Manufacturers: Le Tomeau - Westinghouse Corp. (Adams Div) and later Consolidated
Diesel Electric Corp. (Ingersoll Kalamazoo Division of Borg-Warner built the prototype)
Construction: Aluminum
Table 2.1 Existing LARC V Parametric Description rref. 3 & 71
Engine:
Performance data:
Make: ......... Cummins (initially G.M.)
High range speed land... .....
Type ....................................................
V8
Low range speed land .................... 8m ph.
M odel .........................................
V-903C
Water speed ...................... 9.5 knots
Power ..........................................
295 h.p.
Grade limits ............... 60% @ 1 mph.
Revs full ...................................
2,600rpm.
R evs idle .....................................
650rp m .
3 0mph.
Turning radius:
Land ...........................................
41ft. 3in.
Electrics:
Outside clearance radius min ....36ft. 6in.
24vdc insulated earth return.
Inside clearance radius min ...... 26ft 6in.
Overall Dimensions: -
Water turning radius: ....................... 36ft.
Length ....................
35ft.
Fuel consumption (maximum):
Width over tires ............................... 1Oft.
Land ........................................
6gph. imp.
Overall height ........................ ....loft. 2in.
Sea .........................................
12gph. im p.
W heelbase .........................................
W eights:
16ft.
Freeboard (amidships loaded) ........ 10in.
Net. inc. crew and fuel ............ 19000 lbs.
Clearances:
Maximum payload .................. 10,000lbs.
Hull to ground 2ft.
Total gross .............................. 30,000lbs
'Propeller shroud to ground 16 in.
Tires:
Cargo space:
18in x 25in 12ply
Length ...............................................
16ft.
Hard surfaces bow 18psi...... stem 22psi.
9ft. 9in
Soft surfaces bow 9psi .......... stem 14psi.
Depth (side panels) ....................... 2ft. 5in
Shipping all round .......................... 50psi.
Width ...................
5
Owner's Requirements (UCT2 and UCTI)
During visit to UCT2, an operators and mechanics were interviewed as well as
unit's leadership. Numerous digital -photos were taken and one vehicle was driven into
the harbor for a test drive. The main concerns of the interviewed personnel were with
vessel's stability (in the surf zone), performance (speed and range), deck space, and
equipment compatibility (equipment mounting, vessel mooring, towing, and anchoring)
for team's operations, and finally with vehicle's drive and power systems:
Those
concerns are discussed in greater depth in the following paragraphs.
It was pointed out that the craft underwent capsizing in the surf zone. As stated
earlier the hull was designed for river and protected water operations, where in the surf
zone a modifications to the hull and center of gravity configurations, increased power,
thus ultimately maneuverability are required. The vessel's bilge plug and pump system
was discussed and it was agreed that improvements are also required.
Current
arrangement allows water entering the hull while plugs are not secured, thus system
preventing flooding when plugs are not secured, was sought (i.e. buoyant floats, one-way
check valves, etc.).
One of many vehicles' deficiencies is its inability to cover large distances (up to
400 miles required). In addition, though it has listed range of 200 nautical miles on land
(40 nm on water), the vehicle is hauled by the tractor within five miles of the water.
Vehicles current speed on land and waterborne is far from reaching expectations or even
requirements of listed design performance. For example, required speeds are 70 MPH,
highway (demand on suspension and steering capacity) and 40 MPH on sand versus
available 22 MPH, with 30 MPH design baseline when fully loaded. Similarly in the
water expected speeds are exceeding 20 knots, while available is only 6.5 knots (9 MPH
listed). [ref.3]
LARC - V was not developed as a dive platform, thus it does not provide the
most effective dive support. Required is dive station with Surface Supplied Dive side
(including a compressor), removable twin scuba tank storage (similar to those used on
YDT's at Diving Center in Panama City), let in or recessed ladder, and other diving
6
operations components such as 20 pair of twin SCUBA cylinders, drawers for MK-21
helmets, roll up doors for dive gear, windlass, anchors, fresh water rinse down, etc.).
The practical mooring, towing, and anchoring system with proper cleats, bollards,
capstan (including a self-recovery winch), bumpers and fenders, etc. The current exhaust
system gets in direct contact with the synthetic mooring lines resulting in melting the
lines.
The stowage for that equipment also was' presented as problematic (no proper
space provided for ready access).
Sea handling equipment and particularly weapons,
ammunition, communications' equipment requires' a dry storage space.
Sufficient dry
storage below deck with easy access scuttles that are low maintenance and airtight shall
be provided. The proper' mounting for the caliber 50 weapon was also discussed. It was
pointed that some kind, of an overhead cover (perhaps compatible with MTVR canvas)
would improve work environmental 'conditions (sun, rain) 'for the topside personnel:
The current deck arrangement amidships with small. freeboard seems to be optimal for
diving operations and Zodiac' motor boat operations; although an improved boat launch
and recovery system is required.
The deck arrangement is also favorable for cargo
handling (vehicle's initial 'requirement), 'where 'components such 'as bridge spans; or
foundations might have to be transported in support of underwater construction.
Interviewers requested that the critical 'vessel's system be' more reliable and its.
capacity increased.
The compatibility of -the engine and other components with the
Marine Corps MTVR (see appendix 2) was'discussed. -MTVR's engine capacity is 425
[HP], which might be an answer to the requirement -of increased power necessary to
achieve the waterborne speed and maneuverability.' The water jet implementation is
sought, as used in AAAV and 'other amphibious vehicles [ref 11]. In this case safety
would be improved and 'limit on propeller size due to 'ground clearance would be
eliminated, or diminished. Additionally, considering large size of the main engine, it
might be desirable for efficiency to have a small auxiliary engine to support dive or other
operations while at anchor.
Increased mission requirements, beyond rated capacity, resulted in decreased
reliability and diminished availability of the replacement parts. Perhaps the most critical
component, the drive train, was not developed for current type of engine (diesel versus
gasoline), as well as the increased requirements of demanding missions in the surf zone
7
salvage. This important aspect (maintenance and cost critical) of the vehicle's reliability
could be addressed by implementing an all wheel drive, which would be based on
hydrostatic drive (possibly other improved arrangement) versus existing right angle direct
drive (prone to damage in the surf zone operations).
In addition, it was pointed out that the vehicle will have to be transported on a
plane, with C-17 being a most feasible aircraft. This presents additional limits on the size
of the vehicle. It was noted that the smaller size of the vehicle is not desired, thus not
allowing for highway standardization of existing vehicle. The current beam is 10' versus
allowable (without additional permit) is.8'6". This could be addressed in new vehicle
design by dual hull design, which would allow adjustable beam.
Additional
improvements
like
safety,
crew
comfort,
reliability,
and
maintainability, are listed in the [Ref. 3]. Suggested improvements in that reference,
resulted from study done in 1999 for -the NAVFAC by John J. McMullen Associates
(JJMA) mostly at the Beachmaster Units (BMUs) at Naval Beach Group Two (NBG2)
and Construction Equipment Department (CED), CBC Gulfport, MS. [Ref. 3] also lists
further requirements as viewed by the BMUs versus UCTs.
8
Chapter 3. METHODOLOGY
The first approach of this study, after gathering owner requirements, was to
estimate power required to increase the speed to expected value above 20 knots.
The
existing modification and improvement program performed by the Marine Corps on its
Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) was studied. AAV's parameters were found to be
similar to those of LARC V, thus -comparison analysis were possible.
AAV was
,upgraded to an Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV), -with the scope similar
to that expected for LARC V.
Values were compared and expected values were
estimated for improved LARC.
It was noted that direct power density comparison was not sufficiently accurate
and that further analysis of hull form modification, alternative propulsion system, 'and
other hydrodynamic appendages were required to arrive at realistic estimated required
power for improved LARC.
At that stage, two models of original and improved LARC were formed using
•AUTOSHIP and values such as hydrostatic parameters, weights, -displacements, planes
areas, hull form coefficients, wetted surface areas, centroids, and metacenters were
calculated for input to the AUTOPOWER for resistance and power calculations.
The
results were compared with the results of comparison study done on AAAV.
The
analysis were performed and' results used to establish the viability of estimated power
required to achieve expected speed by modified hull versus existing LARC V.
Finally, new conceptual designr of Dive Platform Catamaran (DPCAT) was
developed and analyzed for resistance and effective power. The conceptual design is
based on the dual hull vehicle with adjustable beam.
Retractable wheels allow
minimization of the resistance, thus increased performance while waterborne. Power and
resistance analysis were performed for maximum beam with folded wheels. In addition,
the structural beam connecting the two hulls of the catamaran was analyzed for local
primary stresses at the supports.
Various hull scenarios were compared and recommendations were discussed.
Results are presented and evaluated in the following section.
9
Chapter 4. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
LARC V and AAA V Comparisons
In the course of this project the Marine Corps AAAV was considered and
comparative analyses were performed. The size of both vehicles is similar with large
variability in weight. The former AAV capabilities are similar to present LARC V,
-where AAAV capabilities are similar to required redesigned LARC, 'dive vehicle'. For
example AAV's speed in the water was increased from 6-'8 MPH to 23-29 MPH. Range
on water was increased from 45 'to 65 miles.
Appendix 5 presents in Table 2 the results of comparison calculations between
modifications done to upgrade Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) to Advanced
Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAAV)... This upgrade increased AAV's speed from 6-8
MPH to 23-29 MPH waterborne; 30[MPH} 'to 45[MPH], and improved range. Most of
size and operating parameters of AAV such as speed and power were found to be almost
identical: to LARC V [ref, 4]: The' results were applied to LARC V atd based on the
power density analysis, ,ad increase in required power for improved LARC was
estimated.
The parameters and characteristics of' AAV and AAAV are presented in
appendixes four and five.
The comparison analysis based on direct power density
calculations revealed that improved LARC would require 1037 [HP], which is a rather
large and perhaps unacceptable power-demand on this size of vehicle. At this point, it is
assumed to be an upper bound'on therequired powerfor improved LARC.
Based on scaling of transverse (immersed) areas due to AAAV's larger beam (12'
versus 10' for that of LARC V), and larger draft (approximately 7' versus 4'), it was
concluded that scaled expected power required for modified LARC to achieve speed
above 20 knots would be approximately 494 [BP] (see appendix 5). The resulting power
required was calculated based on the following relation 1037[hp] * (ATAAAV /
ATdive) =
494 [hp].
The similarities were analyzed based on data presented in Appendix 4 and
Reference 4. Results are provided in Table.2 of Appendix 5. Direct comparisons with
10
the AAAV, ([PdensityLARC / PdensityAAAv] * WLARC, see appendix 5), were performed
under assumptions given in section 4, and conclusions were drawn that between 494 and
1037 [HP] would be required from new engine. Because AAAv's draft is much greater
than that of LARC due to the weight (vehicles are of similar size, but varying density),
and because LARC's beam is 2" smaller, the lower bound is 494 [HP]. This bound
becomes more realistic under condition that modified vehicle is propelled by two water
jets versus LARC's single propeller. Above comparison is not very accurate, but it does
give an estimate ofexpected lower and upper bound in engine power requirements for the
required vehicle.
Under closer scrutiny other components such as displaced volume, inertia
coefficient, added mass, wave making characteristic, and drag coefficient should be
considered. However, this simplified analysis point out that it is possible to achieve hull
resistance compatible with 425 [hp] delivered by the MTVR engine (required by the
owner).
The study done by the John J. McMullen Associates, Inc. commissioned by Naval
Facilities Engineering Command and described in reference 3, indicates that, based on
assumption that engine horsepower varies closely with -the cube of the craft's speed
(Vk3 ), even large increase in power will only increase speed by small amount. Thus,
achieving a half-not increase in maximum speed (6.89 knots to 7.39 knots) would require
increase in power of 23% (292 BHP to 360 BHP). Accordingly, increase of full knot
would require 438 BHP, or a 50%. As seen, with expectations of speed above 20 knots,
this trend would require unrealistic amount of power to satisfy the owner requirement. This study, based on speed trials data, indicates that no significant improvement in craft
speed is possible without hydrodynamic modifications. The propeller's low efficiency
(approximately 37%) and constraint on propeller diameter further decrease effects of
power increase and suggest implementation of an alternative propulsion system.
Certainly, further study is required to find out the best propulsion components for
their feasibility and compatibility.
It seems that two water jets, powered by more
powerful engine, might be a best option considering a propeller ground clearance
constraint.
11
LARC V and Modified LARC Modeling
In next phase of the project LARC V and modified LARC were modeled using
AUTOSHIP software. The results were used for resistance and power calculations in
AUTOPOWER software.
Two vehicles were compared with each other and with the
results of similarity study of AAAV. ' Further ana4ysis were- performed and results were
used to establish the viability of estimated power required to achieve expected speed by
modified hull-versus existing 'LARC V. •
Appendixes 6 through 9 represent analysis performed using AUTOSHIP software.
Two models of existing LARC V 'arid' modfired LARC were- formed -and various
hydrostatic parameters calculated.
Weights, displacements, planes areas, hull form
coefficients, wetted surface areas,- centroids; and retacenters'were calculated to'use'as an'
input to the AUTOPOWER, in which resistance and estimated power were calculated.
The existing LARC V was modeled based on parameters presented in Appendix'
10, the LARC V characýeristics. .-Hull form was modeled based on the weights, beam,
length, frieeboard, draft; and other dimensions given in Appendix 10"and Table I for
LARC V. Modeling presented some challenges due to unconventional hull form of the
vehicle such as bow and'wheef well areas.: The-hull weight was represented as individual
aluminum plate weight, while machinery,. equipment, and inner hull weights were
represented as two cubes- concentrated masses located at the cet*erline of the, model in
locations resulting in depired longitudinal: center of gravity. Although the hull tunnel
hoisting the propeller wats not modeled,' a fitted nozzle was modeled as a horizontal
cylinder and was included in this model (see Figure 11-12). The line drawings and
renderings of this model are presented in Appendix 6.
The modified LARC was modeled based on required underbody and wheel
fairings. It required reshaping the bow and the hull forward of wheels to divert flow
around the wheels (see Figure 14-16). In addition, retractable plates were added along
the inner and outer edges (including wheel wells) to improve flow, thus further reducing
resistance.
The outer hydrodynamic appendages were modeled as vertical plates
(restricted by wheels), with attached bottom plates angled outboard for ease of
mechanical operation and favorable hydrodynamic force distribution as well as flow
12
improvement (see Pigure- 13~16)., The inner hydrodynamic appendages were modeled as'
vertical plates with only slight angle to vertical in order to improve hydrodynamic flow
and favorable force distribution onthe-plate. , ,
Effectively entire wheel wells and the wheels were encased, which is considered a
simplification as in real situation this might not be feasible. The hull tunnel hoisting the
propeller and fitted nozzle were not modeled in this version in anticipation of water jet
propulsion system, which might be-implemented in the improved model. , '
The hydrostatic values and contour drawings of both models are presented in
appendixes 8 through 9 and 6 respectively.
Hull form parameters are presented in
Appendix 7 as an input t 9 AUTOPOWER resistance and propulsion calculating program.
It shall be noted that metacentric- radius decreased -for" the modified -LARC model.,
Coefficients of water plane and midship section, as well as wetted surface areas vary as
expected, and draft and displacements vary slightly.
The calculations of resistance and power were carried in the next phase using full version
of the AUTOPOWER program andi results are presented in the following section of this
report.
LARC Resistance and Power Calculationsand Comparisons
The calculations were performed-to estimate'the resistance and power required for
LARC V, as well as for the modified LARC version described in the preceding section.
The AUTOPOWER program was used with displacement and planning hull methods
utilized. In case of displacement hulls, the power and resistance difference between the
two hulls follow expectations with- oly 'approximately' I0% improvement after fairing,
the LARC V hull.
The Fung and Holtrop methods were utilized as shown in the
Appendix 11.
The planning hull assumption was also made and analyzed with results showing
no significant difference in resistance or effective power. Various Savicki's and Radojcic
methods were used as shown in appendix. Results are presented in the Appendix 7. All
methods were limited by certain Froude number, thus values for some speeds were not
13
obtained with only one method, thus two varying methods were used for both
displacement and planning hulls.
There exist an agreement between results of this study and the empirical results of
test run done by the John J. McMullen Associates, Inc:, in their 'Product Improvement
Study. The approximatp effective power using'Fung method for lower Froude number
proves a better estimator for this case: The Holtrop, method is used for wider range of,
Froude number.
Howeyer, it departs from the empirical results and underestimates
required power Nonetheless, when used in tandem, those-two methods provide 'a range
of what one could expect at wide range of Froude number.
The following phase -of the project "coneentrated 'or development of alternative
new design based on du#l hull (demi-hull) with adjustable beam and water jet propulsion
applied in that altemativp.
Dive Platform Catamaran(DPCAT) Modeling
Hull form design js one of the most important challenges in shipbuilding industry.
The demit-hull (catamarafr) of variable 'beam and waterjet propulsion is considered- in this
phase of the project. Thq propulsive-coefficient for the catamarans varies with the type of
propulsion.
-
The most eommon. types' are' water jets, 'propeller -with, inclirring shaft,
propeller with aft body tunnel, and Z-drive. The corresponding propulsive coefficients
are 0.62-0.64, 0.64-0.65-, 0.?-0.8, and 0.68-0.7 respectively. 'It is immediately noticed
that water jet propulsion is not the most efficient.
However, the safety concerns
associated with each type and its relevance to dive operations, as well as relatively small
average efficiency benefit, suggest implementation of the water jet type propulsion for
the dive platform. , Additional' benefits of the- water jets -are 'improved maneuverability,
and increased ground clearance, whereas factors of concern include faulty operations in
rough seas, such as surf zone.
It is assumed that vehicle is towed ashore, with only limited self propulsive
capability via electric or hydraulic drive while on land. It is also assumed that the
vehicle's wheels are retractable or dismountable, thus disregarded in resistance
calculations. The hydrofoil version was not a part of this study, but its benefits and
feasibility should be considered as resistance becomes greatly decreased during normal
14
.sailing; since designated part of the-vessel is -lifted above the 'free- surface due tto dynamic'
lift. This scenario would be applicable only for a particular loading condition, as the
water jets would come btut of the water if load too, small was 'applied; or 'benefit of the'
dynamic lift would not ýe achieved in opposite case. The bottom line is that for small
size ships, the amount of resistaneereduetiorf due to-the foil system is up 'to- 60% from the
bare hull resistance [Ref'. 15]. -The loading is a very important aspect of the catamaran
design, as it might significantly hinder its 'operational capability; when' for example'
vehicle could not contijnue the high speed sailing due to excessive drag.
Thus the
selectiorr of 'the' design base' weight '(disprlacement) is related to' initial 'estimation of '
required power [Ref. 15;.
For this study a vehicle with five metric tons (- 10,000 [lbs])
and gross weight of approximately- 16- [T] (-30,000 flbs]) is considered. ' This complies
with MTVR' s towing capacity of 11 [T], empty vehicle.
Catamaran vehicles offer 'marry practical advantages in form of large deck- area,'
high stability, superior maneuverability, easy operation and maintenance [Ref. 15].
The DPCAT was modeled using same- AUTOSHTP program and was based on'
LARC V characteristics, ,as same length and, draft was used with only beam scaled down
by half. --In other words 'the modet of LARC V was'split' longitudinally in two. - Iw
addition no wheels and propeller tunnel was -included, as retractable wheels and water jet
propulsion was assumed. The two httlls' are-structurally joined by'two'beams; which also'
serve to adjust the beam 9fthe.-demi-hull from minimum 2.6
i[m]
to maximum -of5.2 [m].
The figures presenting DPCAT model'-gnd its characteristics are presented in the
Appendix 11.
Hull Connecting Beam Analysis
The following analysis was motivated by the undergoing study of the amphibious
vehicle redesign. The vehicle was modeled as a catamaran with variable beam span (see
Figure 4.1). The beam is adjustable via two hull-connecting boxed girders, which are
subject of this study.
15
5
10
16
2021
Subject of Analysis
1
T
5T1r
-JI I Ii L4
F1
20
I I IIILz
-Y
Figure 4.1 Vehicle Concept
Deterministic approach, selected for this structure generation, is followed. Such
approach to structure generation involves: guess of the configuration, estimating loads
acting on the structure, structure analysis for stress adequacy.
Transversely loaded and uniform cross section boxed girder of wall thickness t is
considered with cross section of width b (flange) and web height a (see figure 4.2).
b
a
Figure 4.2 Boxed Girder Cross Section
16
Primary Parameters and Load Determination
The cross sectional dimensions of the girder are a = 0.3 [in], b = 0.2 [m], and the
girder wall thickness is t = 0.01 [in].
Various load cases were analyzed in order to most accurately apply a lateral
vertical load q on top and bottom faces of left end of the beam. The following figures
represent the selection process.
Initially the scenario of beam fixed at one end and free to deflect vertically, but
restricted to rotate, was approached since it closely resembles a beam with the hull
attached to it at the opposite end. The hull action results in some moment at the 'free'
end of the cantilever (see Figure 4.3).
_____
R= S=P
_______
LR
=
S.
P
M
12E-
Y
...
CM
•m~
na ,
_
/2
Pi
i
!
i
)x = 12E I
-
S.........
(at deflected end)
-!
2)
.
M
Figure 4.3 Beam fixed at one end and free to deflect vertically, not to rotate
In order to simplify this scenario, the beam length was extended the center of
gravity of the hull and transverse load was applied instead of the moment at the free end
of the beam (see Figure 4.4).
17
,1
*...
l
R=S=P
P
M max = P1
R
....
'y
M=Px1
P
max
=
Y
SHEAR
(at fixed: en-d)-
-
P3E
E (21
(at free end).
3-
X
MI
MONVE NT
Figure 4.4 Cantilever beam with concentrated load at one end
In order to further develop the load case at the local level between reactions A and
B, the cantilever reaction moment is replaced with two reactions as in case of
overhanging beam with concentrated load at the end of overhang (see Figure 4.5)
It can be seen immediately that the maximum moment still occurs at the reaction
point A. For the reason this section is analyzed in the following section for the occurring
stresses at a given point load P. However the bending stresses, or primary behavior
stresses, are not the only stresses involved, thus further investigation into local behavior
is required.
The modeled load case differs from the telescopic beam case, were
deflections are restricted. Nonetheless it might be beneficial to look at the behavior of
the partially restricted scenario, such as shown in Figure 4.5
The deflections for this case, presented in the Figure 4.6, indicate that the
maximum lateral load seen by the top face of the beam, when restricted by the interaction
with the hull (see Figure 4.7), exists somewhere between the reaction points, but not at
the tip of the beam. This suggests that the loading seen by the interaction area is not as
concentrated as it would seem previously, and could be modeled as a distributed area, or
line load. At this time it should be noted that as the flanges of the beam experience a
lateral loading the plates in the webs experience in-plane loading and should be analyzed
for in-plane stresses. However, even if the area distribution was assumed, the transverse
18
loading the flange would be small compared to in plane loading experienced by the web
plates.
S=
R
Mt
iP
Pa
P
/ý
XI
1S .
R2
Pat
Mj~x(tR,)
..
-.
a
between supports)
P(a 7xX)
(for overhang)
. = P
.
MI:t.
..
*SHEA•R
.a"
'P2
¶llf"x'.O6415P{" 0
,+'
MO EN•
y
.
: ...
l--I2x)
= IE
supports)
•between•
(
.
Figure 4.5 Overhanging beam with concentrated load at the end
, ~~~-Ove.. . . . .hang"
a
xI'
(
-
M
• o ,
~
~
. ....
.
-
e -1•+
pY
"
)/a,
.....
g
::
i
...
+
..................
+
a,'
-.-----..-.--.--
19
Figure 4.6 Deflections for overhanging beam with concentrated load
The following paragraphs apply this global deflection scenario to substitute
concentrated loads with distributed loads, Various distributed loads are considered.
B
C
A
Figure 4.7 Beam Supports
For consideration of this study, the vertical point loads are applied to both faces of
the beam.
This scenario resembles an end loaded cantilever beam with opposing
reactions at a given displacement creating a reactive moment. For theoretical purposes,
more appropriate load scenario would be if load qi and q2 were gradually distributed
(triangular or parabolic) reactions to the load imposed by the weight of the hull at the
opposite end of the girder (see Figure 1.8). Load P is 2.75 [T] (half of the total weight of
each hull), and is applied at x = 2.925 [in] (girder length, plus half width of the hull,
minus 0.2 [m] for girder 'clamping' (distance A-B)).
q
......
1tl 1ýilll
~~~
~
Figure 4.8 Considered Beam Distributed Loading
Point B is located at x = 0.2 [m] and girder is long, L = 2.5 [m]. Based on the
above information reactions at A and B are determined from force and moment
20
equilibriums based on sums of the moments and forces. The respective reactions are RA
= 37.47 [T], and RB = 40.22 [T]. The resulting simplified uniform loads qi = 7.5 [T/cm]
and
q2
= 8 [T/cm], over 0.1 [m] each, are modeled, as presented in Figure 4.9. This
lateral loads were obtained by substituting reaction moment from reactions at A and B,
by point forces resulting in equivalent moment at the center of the area of the respective
distributed lateral loads and distributing those forces uniformly over half span between
the reactions.
q, = 750 Tim
q2 -800 Tim
Figure 4.9 Alternative Beam Distributed Loading
The following section will present analysis of the structure leading to
determination of adequate stresses in the plates of the girder.
Analytical Method
Two characteristics of the structure are strength to resist encountered stresses and
stiffness to resist excessive deflection. To determine above characteristics, one must
consider primary, secondary, and tertiary behavior of the members of the structure.
Primary Behavior
In this analysis, the primary stresses and resulting deflections can be determined
by applying beam theory to the girder. To find resulting in plane stresses we started with
determination of the load and reaction forces. Based on that information stresses can be
determined from the following equation:
C =M/S
(4.1)
where M is the moment at given location x, and S is the section modulus of the girder.
21
S =i/y
(4.2)
where y is the distance from the Neutral Axis (NA), and I is the second moment of
inertia and I=2*(a3 * t /12 + b * t'* (a/2)2) for the analyzed girder.
Based on the.above formula, the moment of inertia about NA is 1 = 1.35*10 4 [m4]. Thus,
section modulus is S = 9* 10-3[m 3 ]
The maximum m0oment, for point-reactions, is at the point x where the shear force
is zero. Thus x = 0.097 [m],',andthe'morient M max is 36.38 [m*T]. At this point, the
axial stress in extreme fibersean.bedetetmined, and from equation 4.1 a is 4 [kgffmm2 ],
or 40 [N/mm 2].
Primary stresses ar~e large contributors to total stresses in the critical cross section
of the-girder.•
Secondary Behavior
This approach uses a plate theory to determine corresponding secondary stresses
as plates and stiffeners deform betweerr supports'under-applied' lateral loads.
Due to the girder configuration and loading in the zone of maximum bending
moment, it can be treated 'as a short beam- (leigth' between points of -zero bending'
moment, L. = 0.2 [in] = P),, and effective breadth-is approximately 0.3 * Lo, or 0.06 [in]
(Hughes, 1988). This value'corrid be as higo as 0.7 * b
0'. 14 '[rrr], 'but'for this analysis' a
conservative value of effective breadth. is selected.. -In'conservatiVe. case,. the.'effedtive
section modulus would he..
- 4.81Oi'[nrij, bid effectiVely a is 75 '[kgft i2.j, br,750
[N/mm2.]. .For comparison, ,yield strdss for ,32
strength is 470-585 [N/mm 2 ].
steel is 315 [N/rem2j, 'arid its' -tensile
In'this aspect stress in the analyzed girder is very high;
but this can be attributed to conservative value of the effective breadth.
Tertiary Behavior
This approach uses an isotropic plate theory to determine corresponding tertiary
stresses as plates themselves deform between stiffeners under applied lateral loads.
A rectangular plate is considered of length a, and width b, and thickness t. The
equilibrium equations for forces along axis, and corresponding moments are presented in
the following equations for small deflection theory.
22
Y
A
NN.
N,
N,
Nxy
x
Ny
Figure 4.10 Isotropiq Plate Configuration
aN.
Ox
ON
Ox
-x2Oxay
-)y2
aN.
=0
Ox
(4.3)
'+ONY=0
Ox
-.
(4.4)
+O•xO-Y
&2
N
Oy 2 )
After satisfying equilibrium, the strain compatibility has to be satisfied.
(4.5)
The
following equations present the components of the strain in the middle surface of the
plate.
,vx
Ou
ex
02 w
Ox2
Ov
02w
&-+•
y Oax
-2z
(4.6)
C2
OxOy
(4.8)
23
Material properties link strain tensors and equilibrium forces via Young's
modulus E and Poisson's coefficient v. - •
tE
(4.9)
tE
(4.10)
=tG
(4.11)
E
2(1+v)
,where G is the modulus of elasticity.
Strains can be fiurther related to. stresses using the Houk's Law.
E
_-V2
C"
E
= lV2 (--Y
+ vex)
ry = Gyxy
(4.12)
(4.13)
(4.14)
Ultimately, the stresses can be related to displacements, by following substitution.
Ez (a2•
V2
Cy
=
Ez ( a 2w
-
2 IV
a2wW
"+• y
(4.15)
a 2w)
+ ai
(4.16)
,• = -2zG aw
OxO-y
(4.17)
Eventually, moments can be related to displacements by substituting above
stresses into:
Mx= f zardz
- Y2(4.18)
Similarly for My and Mxy.
24
(4.19)
Mx=- -D +v-3
12EP2
=*YEt
D D
12
,where
.'v)
Shear Distribution
The maximum shear force Q = 40 [T], occurs in cross section at x = 0.2, or point
B and'maximum shear stress at that section can be determined by first calculating a shear
flow in the beam at the Neutral Axis (NA).
q=Q*rm/1
(4.20)
m=fy*t'*'ds'
(4.21)
where
Thus, m = (a/2 * t * b/2) + (a/2) 2/2 * t, or m = 1.275 * 104[m3],
and q = 37.78 [T/m]. Eff/ectively, the shear stress is obtained by dividing shear flow q by
the actual thickness of the web, thus T= 3.8 [kgf/mm2], or 3018 [N/rnm2l.
The following section- discusses. additional steps required for the structural design
analysis, evaluation, and structure oprtiization.
Findings
The above analysi' considered the-three key elements contributing to the total
stresses in the structural system. 'Stresses resulting fowmtlthe-primary structure behavior
are the major contributors, however secondary and tertiary behavior influence stress
distributing and contributýe-comsiderably'to, total stress.'
The distributed loadingin presented above-case, poses several problems as inplane- and transverse loads are-involved simultaneotusly: Methods such ýas Finite Element
Analysis could prove very helpffil in localstress evaluation, assuming proper loading is
applied. The modes of buckling and budding critica loads would contribute ftrther to'
the knowledge of the strucoure
behavior under scrutinized conditions. In particular, the
/
beam's web plate at the cross sectiont with large in-plane loading shotuld be further
analyzed. The configuration of the considered structure suggests susceptibility to torsion
at global and local levels, thus torsional rigidity should be also considered.
25
The primary loading and corresponding stresses were determined, but further
investigation should evaluate optimized scenarios, which should streamline the structure
due to less conservative
1pprofth.
The finite element analysis, evaluation, and optimization based on MAESTRO
Version 8.0 software, the Structural Desigh System, was considered in this project, but
final results were not obtained
at this time.
/
Assumptions
"* Small deflections are assumed
"* Small plate thickness compared to other -dimensioef
"* Linear plastic material
Limitafio
-
"* Complicated lateral load distribution along the boundaries
"• Difficulties in determining precise-loads dictate conservative loadassumption
"* Dynamic loads were not considered
"* Buckling was not evaluated
"• Torsional rigidity was not evaluated
"* Additional axial loads in thelbeam werf-npt considered
Recommendations
The load factor, di'tribution, is considered as a simplified configuration in form of
vnifoyrm load, possiby -resulting"in biased analysis. , Modifying the load distribution in
more sophisticated fashipn shall 'deliver more precise, results, but applying discussed
uniform distribution is si'mpte and might prove- adequate upon further analysis such FEM "
and experimental methodAx In addition to conversion of the concentrated reactions to
distributed load, a cargo -distributed -and concenrtrated 'lo~ads should be analyzed and
superposed stresses evaluated.
Foremost, further investigation shall be considered to analyze dynamic loading, as
well as influence of loads along beam's longitudinal axis and torsion.
Secondly, the conclusions of this study should be verified using other analytical
and finite element methods.
26
DPCA T Resistance and Power Calculationsand Comparisons
The resistance and powr required for DPCAT was calculated, using- same
AUTOPOWER program as- for the -case of LARC V and modified LARC, however
catamaran hull method was employed versua displacement methods.'
The Compton Se~ni-Displacement, Savitsky's Planning, and FastCat Catamaran
methods ,were utilized, for better evaluation.' Reults' are presented in the Appendix 12'.
Not surprisingly, for different hull ,types the resistance and ultimately effective power
varied. Interestingly, the semi-dispiacement method effeetive -power prediction' closely
follows the empirical resylts fbr the-respective Froude number range. Steep increase take
place upon reaching Froude nernber 0.42; as 'predicted in earlier discussion within the
background section.
In case of planning hull assumption, effective power requirements are quite
smaller, and allow reaching' much larger Froude- number 'within' reasonab-le amount of
power. This method, noý .surprisingly; also indicates the hump at about 19 Knots, or Fn
0.99. 'The -local 'minimum foll&ws at approximately 2G Knots, 'suggesting a choice of the
service speed for this scpnario. Assuming available- power from the MTVR engine of
425 [HP], approximately 350 [kW], "naximum speed between 20 and 30 Knots could be
achieved.
In case of the FastCat Method for the Catamaran, various modifications were
required in order to arrive at satisfactory 'approximate 'results. , In' order to 'achieve a
proper displacement to length ratio, required for this method, the displacement and length
had to be slightly modified.
The modification ckosest to, the real scenario,- with
displacement of 10.5 [T] and Length on Waterline (LWL) of 12.5 [m], proved to be
satisfactory -for the method.- The results' indicated that with' 350 '[HP], effective,
maximum speed of 25 Kpots can be achieved., This necessary adjustment indicates that
some adjustments to the model might require decrease in displacement, 'or hull extension
of approximately 20% on waterline.
Various scenarios were also analyzed, where
displacement was held constant with varying LWL, ad vice versa. Results are presented
in Appendix 12. It indicates that, in order to maintain displacement of 17 [T], LWL
would have to be increased to 14.75 [m] at similar effective power.
The opposite
27
scenario proved less beneficial as lower speed with similar amount of effective power can
be achieved. The above evaluatiors shall be verified using methods, whichwill allow
resistance and effective power evaluation at displacement of 11 I[T] with 9.88 [m] LWL.
Nonetheless, the above evaluation ailowed some preliminary and approximate estimate
for various concepts 0f hulls, including - semi-displacement, planning, and most
appropriate for this study catamararr.
n
,
Main engines car be determined.based on the results of previous studies, which
should.:be verified by the•empirical tests., The amount of fuel required cart be estimated
based on operational parameters and the selected engines.
The results and evaluatioe of the-resistance ar effective power calculations are
presented in Appendix 12.
28
Chapter 5. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the precpding background information the main factors of the technical
approach within the scope- of this project 'are improving the stability- and thee'waterborne'
speed through hull redFsign or modifications and -increased shaft power along with
propulsion efficiency.
Summary and Recommendations
One of the major factors limiting the original vessel's performance in the water is
frontal area described in large by the wheel signatures, (see Fig.3 appendix 3)., Inorder to*
mitigate this problem sore kind of .wheel encapsulation is required. This might not be
feasible as long as the wheels remain the steering'wheels'. Thus; one option'to look'into'
might be reversing the lirection -of,movement of the vehicle, where stem wheels would
be steering wheels and front wheels rotld be partially encapsulated irt this case: Good
example here is the LAR)C X, formerly used bythe UCT (see Fig. 10 in appendix 4). In
addition; wme'kind of underbody' and perhaps bow' plane' might have to be used to'
achieve a significant incrpase ini speed; such as was done;in case of AAAV (see Fig.9 in
appendix 4).
Another factor li4aiting the' waterborne performance is constrained propeller's
ground clearance (see Fig-A alh 5 in Appendix 3): The'size'of the propeller cart not be'
increased in this case apd, as indicated in- the JJMA report of study of the propeller
[Ref.3], large increase in efficieney or shaft power would be'required for smrr1l increase
in speed. The option is to look into the high power water jets and the high power density
,propulsi.
The dual hull configuration of DPCAT creates an opportunity for satisfying the
owner's requirement for the Boat Deployment System. Deployable small boat aboard the
vehicle is essential to the success of many UCT's seagoing missions.
System that
deploys Zodiac boats via integrally designed stem ramps is used worldwide on larger
vessels and should be considered in the new design of the dive platform. Some suggested
here types of recovery systems are shaped or flat hinged ramps, fixed ramps, extended
29
ramps.
Number of criteria must be considered in such developments, such as
deployment, stem-ramp motions, rarnlp availability; 'and' obviously 'dep4oyable' boat,
criteria [ref 12]. In any qase, the coxswain'-s skills are critical inthis difficult operation as
roll, pitch, heave, yaw, ant sway accelerations develop, thus limiting-ramp' availability:
Beside highway compliance, another critical owner's requirement will be satisfied
with dual hull design, as it -will also 'increaa e (double) the" work' deck' area as- beamn
extends during the waterborne, operations.
Increased stability of demi-hulls must be
mentikmed'-hemamweRl.' In additdion'to catamarar; another potential contender is SWATH
vessel, due to its superlative seakeeping in rough seas, stability, and resistance reduction
characteristics. However, the- draft' (hull' submergence)- and load capability due to small,
waterplane area hulls haye its down side in limited load variation; ualess sophisticated
ballast system is provided [Ref. 13]. Nontxheless,' it should be' considered in further
studies as an alternative to catamaran concept.
The demi-hulls usually lead t&' added weight 'due to duplicate" machinery and
structure. However, this ,could be minimized by outfitting the vessel with innovative
electric propulsion.'
In summary, preliminary findings based on the visit to UCT2 and UCT1 and on
the literary review 'were' discussed. ' Selected owner's requirements were' listed, 'hall,
fairing and choice of thý propulsion system were analyzed and discussed. It is intended
that further studies will continue, and will convertrae on tradeoff studies of choice of the
optimal hull form and coioice of the optimal propulsion, system, -where in addition to
speed, the increased power 'and the water 'jets 'might contribute to "improved'
maneuverability and ultimately stability in the surf zone. Further studies are required to
develop hull forms and corresponding propulsion as presented in Appendix 1.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the Ocean Facilities Program (OFP), part of Naval
Facilities Command (NAVFAC), of the U.S. Navy for offering the opportunity to work
on this challenging and exciting project. Appreciation is expressed to all organizations
and individuals who were willing to support this project with ideas, suggestions, and
otherwise. Grateful appreciation is expressed to involved Naval Architects and Marine
30
Engineers, officers and members- of Visited operational units for their cooperation and
valuable assistance. Adolitionally, the author wishes to thank his mother in'law, whose
great, ex,perienee- .as a 'shipyard engirrer pointed to many innovative ideas and
modifications.
Finally, author wvould. like to acknowledge the influence of Professor Alaa
Mansour, whose participation'cortributed irnvaluabie advice' and're~ources necessary for
progress and completion of this project.
31
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Marine Corps, FMFM 9-2 Amphibious Vehicles 1981
2. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., SP-261 Mobility of Terrain - Vehicle
Systems, Optimization of Design and Performance, 1964
3. Dize A. P., John J. McMullen Associates, Inc., Lighter, Amphibious, Re-supply,
Cargo, 5-Ton (LARC-V) - Product Improvement Study, September 1999
4. FAS Military Analysis Network, Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle,
http://www.fas. org/man/dod- I0/ss/land/aaav.htm
5. Mandel P., Water, Air and Interface Vehicles, The M.I.T. Press, 1969
6. Bailey A. D., Alligators, Buffaloes, and Bushmasters, History and Museum
Division Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps Washington, D.C., 1986
7. Woodtech U.K. Vehicles, Amphibious Vehicle,
http://www.woodtech.force9.co.uk/larcv.htm
8. LARC Description, http://www.globalsecurity.orgýmilitary/systems/ship/iarc.htm
9. U.S. Marine Corps, http://hqinetOO1.hqmc.usmc.mil/
10. Discussions and e-mails from UCT2 personnel and management
11. Chun H. H., Kim M.C., Ahn B.H., Cha S.M., Self-Propulsion Test and Analysis
of an Amphibious Tracked Vehicle with Waterjet, SNAME Annual Meeting
Paper, 2003
12. Sheinberg R., Minnick P., Beukema T., Kauczynski W., Silver A., Cleary C.,
Stem Boat Deployment Systems and Operability, SNAME Annual Meeting
Paper, 2003
13. Murthy T., Brebbia C., Topics in Engineering - Marine Engineering,
Computational Mechanics Publications Southampton UK and USA, 1994
14. Keh-Sik Min, Seon-Hyung Kang, Oi-Hyun Kim, Conceptual Design of Very
Large-Size Super-High-Speed Foil Catamaran Containership, SNAME Annual
Meeting Paper, 2003
15. AUTOSHIP User's Manual
16. AUTOPOWER User's Manual
17. ME 240B, Advanced Marine Structures, Class Material, UC Berkeley Fall 2004
32
18: Faltinserr, O.M:, Sea ltoadsorr ships and Offshore'Stractures, 1990'
19. Hughes, 0., AOE 4274,,TheMAESTRO Structural Design System - Method For
Analysis, Evaluation, and Structural Optimization, Version 8.G0, VirginiaPolytechnic Instituteiand State University-Printing Services, Spring 2000
20. Hughes, 0., Ship Structural Designv, SNAME 19988
21. Mansour, Alaa 2003,, Ultimate Compressive 'Strength of Imperfect Unstiffened
Plates: Simple Desigt Equation*, Journa, of Ship'Research; SNARE, 2004,
22. ME 240B, AdvancedvMarine Structures IClass Notes, Fall 2004
23. Principles of Naval Architefttre, SNAfMEi VolumeI; 19'88'
24. Timoshenko, S. , Thegry of'Plates and, Shells, McGraw-Hill 1940
25:'Johns
E.,'HI•ghes 0., AOE 3024 Thin- Walled Structures, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State Uriversity Printing Services, Spring 1998
26. ASNE & JMS, Inc., Marine Casualty Responte: Salvage Engineering,
Kendall/Hunt 1994
27. Poradnik Mechanika, Volume 1, Wydawnictwa Naukowo - Techniczne 1988
33
APPENDICES
34
Appendix 1. Vessef Design Elements
Design requiremepts Study Program, bold items discussed and underlined items
discussed in more detail in'the report (ddoes riot includeaautomotive'portion of the design;
should be intertwined along the vessel design phases)., Vessel Design Process:
a. Demonstrate understanding of the-Owner's lRequirement
b. Tedcnical atprowk,. trade 'off studies had'altermntive solutioul
c. Technical Risks and Imeans to alleviate
d. Table of Principle Charaterigticc
'
e. Weight Estimate LiehtShiv
f.
Weight Estimate Full Load at Dgparture'
g. Curves of Form
h. Floodable Length Curve
i.
Trim and Intact Stability
j.
Damage Stability Analysesq
k. Lines Drawing
1. Inboard Profile and Deck
m. Arrangements
n. Capacity Plan
o. Machinery Arrangements
p. "Structural Mids1i6p Seetiov'
q. Speed/power analysis
r. Electrical Load Anal•,sis
s. Seakeeping Analysis
t. Area/Volume Summar'y
u. Manning Estimate
v. Major HM&E
w. Propulsion Plant Trade-off Study
x. Endurance Fuel Calculation
y. Cost Analysis
z. Technical Risk Summary
35
Appendix 2. Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR)
Figure A2.1. Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR)[ref. 9]
The MTVR program replaces the aging M939/M809 5-ton trucks with a fleet of
state-of-the art, commercially based, medium trucks with greater mobility, lift, and
reliability. The MTVR has an increased payload of 7.1 tons cross-country and 15 tons on
hard surface roads and can simultaneously tow an 11 ton load. The MTVR has a 70
percent off road and 30 percent on road mission profile and is capable of sustained speeds
of 30 mph cross-country.
electronically
controlled
Commercial components include: 425 horse power
engine;
seven
speed,
continuous
power,
automatic
transmission; 6-wheel independent suspension; anti-lock brakes; engine retarder ("jake
brake"); automatic traction control; and central tire inflation.
The standard cargo variant's weight 28,000 pounds and has a reducible height of 98
inches, which makes it internally transportable by KC-130 and externally by CH-3E.
Developer/Manufacturer
Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Oshkosh, WI
36
Appendix.3. LARC V Photos
Figure A3.1. LARC V's Frontal Transverse Area
Figure A3.2. LARC V Propeller and Ground Clearance
37
INS
Figure A3.3. LARC V's Deck Cluster during Dive Operations
Figure A3.4. LARC V Waterborne on 18 December, 2003
38
Appendix 4. Alternative Vehicles (AAA V LARV X)
2015~
1311
192
3W,:2
PORT
Figure A4.1. Marine Corps AAAV port dimensions [ref.4]
13BA8
FRONT
Figure A4.2. Marine Corps AAA" Frontal Dimensions
39
Figure A4.3. Marine Corps AAAV Planning Speed with Bow Plane
[ref.4]
Figure A4.4. Former UCT2 LARC X
40
Appendix 5. LARC V and AAA V Comparison Table
MTVR engine
Parameter
Power, [hp]
AAAV
Land-2600rpm
850
2,575
Sea-3300rpm
Weight, [Ibs]'
Power/Weight Sea-3300rpm
AAAV
Length, [ft]
30,000
0.010
35
Width, [ft]
12
10
Hight, [ft]
10.45
10.2
15
7
1.3
10
4
•1.3
Transverse AT [tt]I
A
30,000
0.014
LARC
29.85
Freeboard
loaded*[in]
Draft (approx. loaded [if]
Clearance
[ft]
Cargo
[Ibs]
Speed (listed) Lan,'d, [MPH]
Sea, [knots].
Range
Land
LARC imp
295
425
295 (1037)*
74,500
0.035
Parameter.
Size:
LARC
5,000
5,000
45
30
25
9.5
300 [miles]. 200 [nm]
Z65 [ntm]
140 [nm}
84
40
Required power upper bound: (1037)*
[hp]
Required power 'lowpr' bound:
494 [hp]
Table A5.1. Parametric Characteristics of LARC V versus AAAV
41
Appendix 6. AUTOSHIP Models of LARC V and Modified LARC
I%
_EN
F I
i.-.
Figure A6.1. LARC V AUTOSHIP Model and Offsets Lines
42
-- - -
----
.---
'I-
Figure A6.2. LARC V AUTOSHIP Model and Contour Lines
43
x~i
Figure A6.3. LARC V AUTOSHIP Model versus Modified LARC
44
T
-T~ m
F
F
1
T
r
'1'-
,(T lTTTT
7'-
s71FPF
-71F-P'T tTFrTF'f
l7TTI- F
P-7
Figure A6.4. Modified LARC Model
45
..
_
1~~~**.................... ---------------------
...........
..
,
_IT
'v'r-,-
~
Figure A6.5. Modified LARC Model and Contour Lines
46
_
... ....
- --- -- -__
.
.......
...
Figure A6.6. Modified LARC Model and Offsets Lines
47
RV,,
Figure A6.7. Contour Lines of LARC V and Modified LARC Models
48
I
..
I--
LL
....
.....
..
-...
Figure A6.8. AUTOSHIP Models of LARC V versus Modified LARC (1)
49
Appendix 7. LARCs' Resistance & Effective Power Calculations
LARC
SHIN8T
_3.05
0.90
0_9
.2.18
6.40
LARM1
9.886
i3.05
1•.00
1.00
1221
6. 59
ýg0-77
0O.64
'0.88
10.75
9Z2-20
•99.46
3.05
3-05
NlO
NO
U
U
U
1U
-4 4;4, 404
7 ý- "'949
Table A7.1. AUTOSHIP Resistance and Effective Power Calculation
Input
50
~
~
0~
d
L
E60c)a
*CV~
C
000
Lr9
*o0o
'jC
0.-666
-
0
_0
0
0
Ooo
0
Ae0
0
2~E
02
CL
ccN
a.
4)
IL
00I<
~
~~ch~~
.s
c,
'60 '6ULULU
c
IG
C~
0.JfCD~
C U
00
O
CC
CIO
E
&ZO~L
<0CL
EM
CL X
jca0c
VE
E=
u)O+4LU
2
Ea
V.,
IDQ.
a0-~ 4-
c-
E+
a8
r
co w
Zcl
cc
LU U
E ZýEa
-a Z a
0
g
'
00
a&
0 .
moo
"It "I0a
*
00t)
iO
)
-
rf-0
od!66!d NoVr--.i-inQ
r- 0
v
T- - - M
lqcr1) cj)
2:
r0%
V p- Go 0
CI
ILL
0 00 00
t
00
0
00 CM
'COO
0l
000
00)
c
0c
CO
't q
o~N~oOI-c-OTI
't- V
L
It
"I
I=-
-Adz--
Ix--a-9
+
1111Ill
l ! OmulilII I!
III! IIII
M 111 1111 1 1 1IT 1 111 1U)
0
- - ---------
to
VA
~
(o
CLC
12)
0
~CM
IW
I
C
)o)
0(
-C
OT
N)Nil INN
V~LII
co)O
00
T
)000
0
0
0
0
Ouu
OIDL
00
9
Ld
--------
9
-------
0d
7
I
_
__
_
_
_
_
_ I_
g)EECNON8N
EEEEE20EOIM
>
0~rZ
0
O5
04
ooz
E
8
0
42
ow
'6
E
Lu
=
-J
a
06
G~c~cor.
CL0 0
10
0~
.C-
co
c
D00
0-0
c~U
E0 r- ~o..oz
z..
C
ooo
%<E c
2
S
04
(D
e
<
g4)
p
0
Go
"I0w
o~
C,
0
0
0
0)
0e
CC
r- c'000000C)G
t0 0
t0
+
'g-0000000000
V-
--
T-
V-
T-
T-
T-
C'4
N
V-
(D-
0
0
Ld
1o .tV' CID
-
I- V) tO
VV
U)
;
>
c~
a
C'U-C'
.i . . . . . . . .
V-V
00
t-
CO
0
0
0
-U
00
00)*
~0
0
d
0
-. w0
00
00
0
ILHA
poý
cou
oa
-
MLUJ
111j1H H
j
11
ui
j
iJJIiLITHIAC'
"HMICiJJ
to
OR
0a0a0
?4
cm) vwN p-,4Cm)C0,4
~
w
M j
I
+
C0
0
IIllIIIIIIII111
+l
0
111J
[ffl
A W
1o
III
I!IHs
1M
--.
-------
LLcdbflLWJLI6*UJ;I0UJ0JJJ±!U1LLR
IUW±LiU1U±JU
+
0
o=6
00oýýý OR0-coi cc:NA
-o
QCO
o
04
>
aor
0~~~'
009
0
CD
-S
015
O
EPtO
t
E~ E
0d
U2
-0
w0
<iciV--Noý
c
U,0
0
vi CD C;
04
~u~oo'U'UE
E
.~,oE
D
cc
0
0
C
E0
'Ut e;
~a-j
Iwz a. oo
( 4)
0
M
w0ooO
Go
tI
i
MWLLL
V±LV±.Cell
CO
0
1 O
LLLL4
IrtLLJJJ
-%
CID
I
00W00
.00 Rq0
()v00>
0 -
Z
V
0 r-000V
0
0- 0
0
0
~
cg
V
UU
to
Z
-
~V ~co
Cq
ca
+
Vj
LL
MCI~ 000
x
+
0
r-:~~
~0 ~ q( ~ OR-.':
l:(
~
T-~wwiiw± 0
W
U4)
>.
=a
4uwwt
W T-LLL K
)
I-~~C
V-----Goq--)
)
C.,'0080000000
+
0000000
D.a'
0
w0
U)---
oCl
to
r0)0)o)
-
0) Cv
4
W)
~0
) co
COO) I-
-m3:
06666C
0
.2X------- -----.
c
vI)
It)
N~ N- ) Cf) IV-
I
F
U-
T. -V-T
w
O
-- *
- -T V-0466~
+
K
Appendix 8. LARC VAUTOSHIP Model Tables of Characteristics
LARC V:
Weights and Areas, Hydrostatics, and Tables of Offsets
63
Weights and Areas
Weight Report._LARC7Length Units: mn
iýigt
Name
nts molume
Material
r
Units,: cu.m-. ___-_
Spgr
I
o -up:t-4
d
Bow
7.--
Hull*1..........-4Trim of Hull Side
None
trim 2 of Bow-Deck -plate None
I
.1
AFT Cube
-0.061
_
0039
I1005.18
[374
he
FW
_
.
.
Prop tube
FWD Cube
....
.
.
.
.
-
Trim of Hull Side
__7.4093
10.0470
ý0.141
8
11.4211
10.0108
0.087
5.18
___-
--
None
-2.71
None
2.71
__
2.71
-
31.0561
1
-
ubI
.
__0076--0.199
___0.02261
_0.061
-
75
5. 016ý8
Totals............
0.0319
.02
1'160.51-4-5
Centroid(m):
-
5.0168,
0.0319
3.186
17.409
1007
0.141
.03
0.0470
ý0.141
10.0108
0.0-8-7
_-181.4211
I--
INone
-
0.1972053
__
-3.5567
3
2.389
J013
1
13
FWD Wheel
Prp
0-O.0-495
11.5834
100
_
AFT Wheel
FWD Cube
0- 0319M
7...7878
Trim2 of Bow Deck Plate !None
AFT Cube
3
10.0470
~-27
___
316
ý
~75
ýNone
Bow
Huil1--
lWeight
.88
-J_0-.049
10.134
'-.51-O92
-----.3
11.58341
0.0736-1---- --0.1-9-"9.57
0021
355067
0.02219
.8
__
-
INone
!
-Volume
-
27
-___
AFT Wheel
'Area
- -
--
.-
2.389
--
13.746
;x: 5.746~ Y: 0.00_:.216
i.
Group
..............
'LARC
o
'Surf:
.
.
.Surf:~----.
.
.
.
.
*
-
-U
-f
.---.-
Poly: Trim of Hullie........
2Po~ly
---Surf: AFT
Wheel
FWD Wheel
-Surf:
-
-
rim2 of Bow Deck Plate..
-
.
.
-
.-
-
.
..-
i.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
........
Surf: Prop tube
Poly: FWD Cube_________________
Page 1
______
.
.
Hydrostatics...
--
j Upright Hydrostatics: LARO
Length Units: m
-----
-
-
Sta.
r-- -
-
--
-
_
_
---
1.1
--
-
K
L .
_-
1.4544_1_
1.73
1.7336
__
2.01
---
-
_
.- 1__
__
-
-
.
0.88771
1.1,864!
1.47201
2.2.2.22'
_
_.
-
2.85
2.5041
3.1.3
3.41
3.1296
3.4088!
3.69
3.68801
2.74321I
3.97
4.25
4.53
3.9672
4.2464
2.7432
2.7432
-
5.64
-
27
-
_
--
7.8760!
8.16
8.43
9.55
9.83
8.71
-
1--
-.-.--
.
.
--.-
8. 1 --6 --.I-ý-lý.-.
89928'I
_
9.55121
9.83041
--
_
-.L--,--
----
1 ----
~
__
KIT-
-
.
-11
--
~
403!
-
.
3.4739;
-ý
- -
2.74321
2.42131
-
.
.
.
.
.
-
ý - -
------..
- "-
- - ----
- ----------.
.
.
_
_
--..-.
I-----------
-
1.71921
17 11
_1.0
1
2.0344
3.82821
3.4739
_
87136_
92720,
-
2.-~2798
8.1552' 1
8.4344 ,-
-
..
_
__
1.71261
-
7.968__
F
7.6
7.88
I-
1
3
2.7432.-
7034
8.99~
-
2.7432!
_6.4800'
6.76
9.27
__
2.7432______
6.66.759
..-
-
-
2.74321
5.21_
6.48
8.71
-
.42j-
59
-
.
--- 4
4.804812732____,-.-.-5.08401
5.3632!1
i5.64241
-
.
.--
2.34841.....
1.8709!
-
__
__-
--.
.-.--.
2.15931
-4.52561
4.8
5.08
5.36
..
3.41611
3.48871
_-
2.57121
-
-
. .
2.7859..
-2.01281I
2.57
_
0.5891_
1.172_-
_
1.45
----------
krea Sq.rm
.55
_
0.61681
0.89601
2
_
Weight Units: mt
--------
]LOC
-
~
Origin Depth: 0.9000~
-
0.62
0.9
-
1
10----.....10961
Page 1
0_
.3151 .-
-..----
-
...
-
--
-------- .----
Hydrostatics...
Curve of Areas
Station
5.Oa
0.Oa
10 Oa
~
S--~I
----- LCB
r
a
&
S-
.J~50.0
I.
.
.. ..-.
Dimensions:----.---....-.-.
L.O..
-10.6680!
-.
Immersed Length
Bmax.
--
-
immersed Volume
FW Displacement
Centroids:
LCB..
TCB
Coefficients:
Block (Ob)
L/B
Ratio
'B.
Lcu.rn.
I
.L
-
-
3.0480..1i
.40
-iW
_SW Displacement
mt
-22.6101
23.175 mt
I.__
.93(89aft)
__
-
ILCIF
-716(10aft)
------
--
-.-
23.442!-~
2 23Jq.m
.4!
__
I__
3.5001
--
Wetted Surface
D/
-....
Immersion
23.25ý3 mtlm
Load Increment /Draft Increment
Transverse Radius (BMt) L1.26591m-Metacentre:
__
Page 2
-
Ratio
-651.937~.....
p,
&
_[sq
__
0.000._
.4-086
Prismatic_(Cp)
Waterplane_(Cwp)
0.497.....
Midsips(Cm)0.81!
Volume_(v)!,
Water- -Pl-ane
3.0480
22.61
.-
_
9.8803!
-L.W.L.
9.8803;
_
0.565i
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
Offsets
LARC
--
x
-
-
-
7.4465-ý
7.00001
6.00001
5.00001__
2.66701
1.21921
1.*0000!1
_
1.52401
0.0000!
1.52401
-1-.
5-2-4-0
1.5240 j
1-.5-2-4-0
0.0000
0.00001
0.0000!
o.oo0oT0.00001
9.1440J
9 . 7499 1
1.52401
1.52401
1.5240'
0.00001
0.5000L
0.7071
10.66801
10.6680
1.5240
1.5240
1.25 -31
10.66801
1.52401
-
1.5000
2
20000
2.3361
2-.13361I
2.1336r
2136
10.6680j
.5240
10.0000i
--l.52-40F,
9.0000'
1.52401
8.00001
1.5240
7.62001
1.52401
7.62001
1.5240
1.2192
7.4465
1.52401
1.2192'
Station: 1.00
f
S--.--
.
_
-2.00001
5.0000
600-0-0
7.00001
8.0Obd52401
9.0000i
10.00001
2,66701
2.6670f
2. 6670
-
4.00001
-
2.66701
__
__
0.50001
.000
0.0001
--
_
_
.
0.00001
0.~0000
0.0854
0.3740
~0.0000
_
q
1.0000
2.16-----.
2.13361
2136
1.0000 .---.
1.4218-
2.13361
i .2598,
1.5000_
2.3j
1.5240
2.1336i
1.5240 _____2.13361
1100
2336[
1.4152,1 -- 2.13-3-6
j
~
F--~
__
i
-
..-.
-
--
.
-
_
I
---
--
j
FI
..--.-
.
117
..
1.0000I
I
.0000-
1
Sttin
2-~-~-
2.000
__I
________________
- _______
-
~
-.--
______
-
-
--.....................-
.1.0000[
.. J0i
i-i
-
-J-
1.0000
-
_
-_
1.00001.....
-..-.-
_
-
I.
~
i
______
2.13361
0.5000
2.38381
2.4043;
1__2.47661
Ix+~
~
bbddoo
22.0001
3--
1
1.5240 L 2 1, 3 3 6 1
1.52401 2.1336
2.1336!
1.5000
1.0000
2.13361
0.5000
2. 1Y33
0.0000
2136
0.000[20331
2.4766'_
2.66701
_____
2.6670'..1.52401
2.66701
1.52401
1.52401
3.00001_
_
-.
1.2192-----1.21921
1.ý52401
_
Units: m
---------------------
1.2192
1.52401
1.52401
1.2 19 2
1.5240 L
1.2192!
1.524-0
-1.21921
-
-
-
1.5240+
-
4.0O000
3.0000;j
2.6670 1
I
1.52401.52401
Offset Table
3D Curve Offsets:
-Measurement
K1~T
3D Curve Offsets:
L1
-
.
~
y;
..
A
1.43091
2.13361-
1.08941
091 1.0
0.50001.
1.5000~
000ý
1§8
0.51981
0.5000!
0~.0000
039175
.20
2.0000--------1.5072
1.51000ý
-2.0000,
200001.4409
Page 1
.
__
1.00.40
213
2.0000
1.9486
1o5000_____
__
-
_
Offsets
-
-
2.0000
-
2.0000
~
--
2.00001
~
2.00
ix
0.1615ý
_2------------0.0247'
0__*01328
3.0000
1.52401_
3.0 000
30000
3-
1.5240
3.0000
-
K 3.0000~
--
.600001
----
-----
~~---
-
__0.5000i
1.0000
101.24.2192
0.0000,
0.0000
1.2954
1.48
1.06681
1.04801
1.0000i--
1 0651-
3.00O001
1.06501
-
_
0.00 0
-~~z-
~~~4.0000
-
14.0000
--
-
OAOO
__
4.0000
000
-
I
-.
Station: 5.00
___
--
1.52401
-
-
ly
-z
5.0000.0000
Ii
0.00001
0-.-O00001,
0-500
.5000
5.00i
-
_- __
.20
5.0000-1----------5.006001
x
--
&z1
-
1.5240,
1.52401
I
-
-
-
.00
.0000;
.19
-
6.0000
--____
6_.0000'1.000
I
i-----~
_
--
6.0000 1
~6.00001
------
-- -
-
-
-
-
6.00001
--
j
T
--
S
-
-
I
0
---------0.50000
__
7.0000
--
0.0009j
0.50001
1.00001
1.2192
40.0000
0.010000006~-
7.0000
--
_
_YZ_
----7.0000
1. 5240
1.52401
-
___V-
-
.--5240
.24
6.0000-
-
0.00001
sor2
~
6.0000
-'L
-
0.0000
0 .0000
______0.5000
~
__
-
-
_
6.0010.0000
_
0.50001
1.0000~
1:21921
_-1-5240~
-: -
JI
0.0000'
~1.52401
4200001
4-q0000'
4.00001
Station: 6.00
0.oooo1
1.50001
_----
---------------
0'00K-
0.50o00
-_
I4.00O00
S-
Sain:7.00
--
0.5000
3.OO00O[--
S~tation:.4.9007-x
0.0000,
1.52401
300,1.0666ý
--- I
---
-
-
3.0
--
---
_0.2876'
0.50001
-
Station: 3.00
0.5509 105000i
_1.00001
~2.00001i
--
1.0000'
1.32071
1.28211
__2.00001
-
1.4143
1.5240
0.0000
7.0000,
1.24
0.0000K
7.00061
1.5240
1.00001
-
Page 2
-------X
Offsets
7.0000
I
7.000
1.2954
.52401
__
_
ZI7
___
F
12
7.00001
7.0000
_
Station: 8.00
-
__
-
-
-
-
-
-
----------
8.00001
8.00001
--
-
--
-
--
--
1.5240'
1.295411.5-0001
1.5240
-
0994
1.50001
7
;x
___----9.0000,
-.
___9.0000
goooV
9.0001
9.0000'
-
-~
___
.9794,
T60ooK
0000001
0--50001
1.52000
0.00001
0.00001
0 50000-
-1.52401
--
1.52401
-
9.0000!
Station: 10.00
1.52401
2.00001
1.5240~
2.00036
1
--
---
i-----
_____
I
__I_
100000
10.00001
_
--
_
Staio:---------
__
_
_
0 .70000
154
1.524011
1.50000-1
--
-10.6680
S10.6680
----------
-
-
---.
-1.52401
0.6801--1.52401
Page 3
-
--
I__10.0000
1______--
2--1.50000
_
--------
10.00001
.0l
1.52401
~T10000
SI
-
10.900-------- - - - - -1541~
10.0000
_
z--F--
S---9.009.0000
------_F
-
0.50001
52 26 1
__8.0000
-
-
___1.5240!
Station: 9.00
-
2.13361
0.9794 1
-0.4714
-0.4714
0.0000~
-___1.
-~
___8.0000
S--L
0.0000
-_1.5226
- ___8.000
-
I 6----------~
-
-
S-~----------i----o
80 000
-
1.50001
0.0000
152O
1,00001
1.52401
2.000015 4 T20 0
_
8.0000
___
oo.0000__
0.50001
-
_
-~-8.00001
- ---
__L
.0000
8.0 00
8.00001
8.0000!8-000--8.0000---------~---
~
-0.40691
F
-
-
-0.40691-
1.50001
0.0000,
8.00 1_.___1
S--
1.52401
-
8.0000 1
_____
-0.4069!
0.91491
_
[
---
--
0.0000
0.7062';
0.i-50001
0 7062~
-1.5240
1.2573-1
2.0900
2.13361
------
Appendix 9. LARC (1) Autoship Model Tables of Characteristics
Modified LARC (1):
Weights and Ar~as, Hydrostatics, and Tables of Offsets
70
Weights and Areas
-----___
We-ight Report:-LARC1
Length Units: m
_____~
-
-~--i-_
VoueUits: cu.rn.
WeightUnits: mt
~~
~~
-------------- ____
Spgr
Maei I
Name
Group: LARCI
Aluminum
BowAuminum
Hull*1
'Aluinu
Trim of Hull Side
T6rn of Bow Deck Plate_-iAluminum
Weight
AFT Cube
M~eight
FWD Cube
Group: Cat Hull
Aluminumn
Cat Bow
AlmnmCat Bottom
Aluminum
Bow
Aluminum
Hull*1
Trm fHulSieAluminum
Trirn2 ofBowDec Plate_ Alumninumn
Weight
AFT Cube
Weight
FWD Cube
Group: Cat Hull
Aluminum
Cat Bow
'-Aluminum
Cat Bottom_
~
-
Volume
ra-
-
__I
I2.13.5567'
_0.061
-
2.7!1
2.71
--
V.6
1_0.134
0.0495
6
0.1972--- 9.534
31.05 1
0.07361
11.5834
0.02H]j
3.5567
0.0319'
5.0168F
0.03191
5.0168'
17.7983
-
_
[.71
!100
'75
127
a42.71
_
3729
115.3346
--
---1___8__31___
Totals__
x:
'Y_
5 4300
0.0237
lo_0974
.-166.181
----
-
10.064
!0.0237
10.0974
1115.3346
- ---
'12.71
Tota-
3.7289
_
2.71
2.1
--
-
.
_
_
2.71
-
-.
!Weight
0.134
0.0495
0.1972
31.0561
019
0.0736
-11.58341
0.0226
3.186
031
LP5.0168
0.39~.8
75
' 7.7983
12.71
-
Centroid(rn):
--.-.--..----
_____
0 0000
~~~~~~~~~~~
-.-.-.....--....
Z- 0 5027
11.0553
!0.064
10.264
Po .Ti2
-13.664
1
--------.-..
.-
-
~
-
f:Bo
-------
of Bo
Plt
--.....
-----
BowSurf:Bow
Cuat Boto
Surf:
CueI
_______Pag
_
-
-----
I
Su
-
0.199
0.061
3.186
2.389
------
'~
-
.
.
Kec
------
-L~~
------
-1
-
.
--
.
-
-
Hydrostatics...
Upright Hydrostatics: LARCI
Length Units: m
Sta.
i
0.62
'
--
~
S~q.
0.61681
4
1.7336
1.73
2.1
.
--
13.28068_
1 2.57121
2.29
2.517
--
.82,-
---
_
_
-- l
-
36h880-IY
1Q.i17i
3.9672
-
3.50111---------
1
-
. J
...-----
-6.2 -6.20081K
-6.48
--- ----
56443.01
.
-
1.8552
_7.03841
--
-~
---
-
~-
----
-
-
-
1.8552'
-I7.31761
7.6
7.88
7.59681
I_
7.70
15
8 A 43 1
8.7136!,4
-
-
1
_
8.99281
3.01L
i-
-----
-
__1.8552'
13.5011,I-
______
__--
8.99
9.27
9.55
9-.83
1-0.11-----
1
3j5
----
6.7592;
7.04
.,
-j-
3.5011'
3.5011
3.5011
1.85521
6.48001
------
6.76---------
8.71
--
3.5011!
3.5011---------
-.
4-
5.2---5.92926
_
---
--
4.8048
5.0840
7.32
_
5011'
4.85.08
-
_
3.5011
~
~
.,.I3.5011'
-
_
1.85521
-
.4_4.5256J
-------
__
1.8552
3.97
4.25
4.53
.--
-----_
.
L1.8552'
-K
3.40881
3.6-9-
5
--
,-------
3.35131
_
_
3.12961
-i
3.41
8.16
8.43
--
-1.81641
I
2.8504
-
~-
1.1864!--
-...
_
2.85
------
0 28-- - --
m
0.58911
0.8877'
_
-1.4544
Weight Units: mt~
0,25551
_
-------
.90
1-.17521
1.45
~
-
cArea
-
0.9
1.18
3.13
Origin Depth: 0.9000
-
___.-
3.48751
-.
-
-
-
-
-l-
3.6641
3.81031
_
-
2.42132
-9.27201
-
I
--
-
9.5512
9.8304
'j
-
1.71911
- 1.0171-1
10.10961
0.31514,.
Page 1
-
__
I
.-
-
---
Hydrostatics...
Curve of Areas
Station
O.Oa
5.Oa
10.Oa
____
-
Area&
LCB
--- --
Immersed Length
--
-
Immersed Volume
FW Displacement
6.5930 (36.9 & aft)
0.00
Coefficients:
_
SW Displacement
_
LCF
Areas:
Prismatic (Cp)
-
~
----------
~
0.635!
-
-
--
Surface
_etted
V--I
Ratios:----[__
_--
-0.580
-
(Cwp)
-I--
.iO9Isq
Water Plane 19
(23.1 & aft)
0.30531
-L--
__
22.636-
Volume (Cv)
99.4621sq~m
-
_-_
-I--j
350
_
629.52
D/L Rai
_
___
Load Increment/ Draft Increment
i909MUM
Transverse Radius (BMt)
I
-
22.378 mt_
_
-7.9527!
052Waterplane
-
--
-
--
I-
VGB[
------
0.436'
5 .
3.0480
BW.L.--
21.833 1mt
Block (Cb)L
~
~-~
---
m.
-~2.3cu.
Centroids:
LOb
TOb
Metacentr:
A
-
3.04801
Bmax.
LBRatio
.0
------
~--
-9.8803!
-
--------
-5
---
Immersionl:
0
I-
---
Midships (Cm)
1 0
1.06251m___________
Page 2
-
-
-
-
-
Offsets
7.44651__
6.00001
5.0000
4.0000
3.0000
--
2.13361
2.13361____
-1.2192i
1.21921
1.21921
1.2192!i
1.2192
2.6670~
2.6670
2.6670
2.6670
1.5000
1.5240
1.0000
0.5000
2.1336
2.1336
2.1336
2.1336
2.6670_
0.0000
2.13361
0.00001
2.13361
_
2.1336
_
_
_
1.21921,
1.5240}
0.00001
1.52401
0.0000
0.50001
__
0.0000
1.0000
0.0000
___0.0000
1.52401
0.0000
0.0854
0.5000
5.0000~
6.0000,-.-
1.5240
1.5240
0.0000!
0.3740____
0.060-0
1.0000
1.0000
1.4218
1.5240
1.5240'
1
.54
i.5240j
9.14401
9.1440
0.00001
0.0000
_
___
0.0000
_
___
__
1.52401
_1 .0000J
10.6680[
1.52401
1.25731
10.6680
10.6680
1520
1.5ý2401
1253-.-.--1.5000
10.6680
1.5240~
2.1336-__---
10.6680
1.5240ý-
2.1 3361
1.5240
2.131
1.5240
2.1336,
7.6200'-
1.524011.52401
1.524-01
2.13361
2.13361
2.13361
7.6200
1.5240
7.6200
1.524-0
7.6200
7.4465 L
1.5240
1.5240
7.6000
--
-
--
---
0.7071._
I
-
___
---
{
_______
_______
______
___
_
___
2.1336
_
_
__2.1336
1.5000
1.52401
2.1336
2.13364
_
1.5240
2.13361
2.4043
2.38381
1.5000
1.5240
2.1336
2.1336
2.47661
1.4152
___
_
_
_____
__2.1336
I
__
__
-
_
1 -----
_
__.---
_
_
_
-
__
K
-
__-
,- ------------ --..
_- -----
.
_
__
-.
-__-
-
x-----
1.0000
____
___
_
___1.0000
____
_____1.00001
~1.00001
___
_
_
1
I
_
__--
------
-
____
_
_
1.29
2.36____
1.4298_
2.1336______
1.3413
1.4298
2.0000___
2.1336_____
1.1499
1.7118
1.00001
i__________1.0962
1.5000
1.00001
1.0000
1.0684
1.00001
0.9812'
1.0000_
0.5000
0.4902
0.5000
_1
_
-
______K
--
___---
--.----_
----.
S1.000
SI.
_
____
__
__
..
___
2.1336
1.K..-.-__
1.219211.2192
--
__
2.1336
_
___
-
1.5000
-
--
___
2.0000I__
_
_---
-Sta-tion.: 1.0-
___
_
__
_
_ __ _ L
1.52401
106.3561
___
-
_
2.3838
[
10.0000
1.00001
9
9.0000!
{
!
0.5000:
-1.-5240-1-
__
1.2598
2.0000
_
_
0.0000
0.0000
1.52401
9---9.7-499
___
_
_
2.L133361
0.00001
2.66701
_~2.0000
__
4.0000
9.0000
K I
1.5240
1.5240
1.52401
1.00001
7.00001
8.000
_
2.4766
2.6670
__1.52401
_
_
1.21921
1.52401
2.6670,_
2.-6 6-7-0- -- 1.52401
2.66701
2.667
___
1.5240
1.5240
1.5240
1.52401
1.5240
2.6670
measurement Units: m
Offset Table j
13D Curve Offsets:
-Y
x
I_ LARCI
___-
3D Curve Offsets:
x
7
~~1.000on_::F___0.51
1.0000
98
0,00001
Page 1
0.39211
_
_
__________________
___
_
Offsets
------
- ---------
ilx
. --. ..
........
,................'
Station: 2.00
i
2.0000+ 2.00001
-.
2.0000
--------.
0
2.00001
_..............._2.0
_
i
1..*
2.00001
-
2.00001_
--.
-
.
SI_
..... -...
_
__
_
..
____
0.5000
-
0.0247
SI
3.0000
3.0000
. ._
I___-3.0000
. .
-
.
..
.
..------
1.5239
_
1.5235
_1.5215
--
1.0000
1.0240
1.0510
1.09471
1-2452,-
..
. . .. -------
3.00001
. ..Ix...... .
.
,
-
..
_
_
....
..
-0.7144J
-0.6417-1
-0.6000
-0.5000
0.0000
-0.4111-_--
-0.5000
-0.6000
-0.76201
-0.7144l
_
-.........
I
-
4.00001
__---~_____-
-
......
0.5000
_____
---------___
-.
1.5240
0.0000
1.5240
1.5240
1.5240
0.5000-1.0000
1.2192
-
.
_
_
__
-
00000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
_ý----
4.0000
_____________
.
0.0000
4.00001
____x
____________
.
1.___00000
+-.-...---4.0000
.
_
1.24521.5000
1.5240
____
_
3.0000
-3-.oo o
...
.
...
[
3.0000
3.0000
I
1.0000
_-_.
3.0000
_...
. .
0.0000
0.5000
1.5240.2192
30000
... . .
o
1.5240
1.5240,
3.0000
3.0000
.--
o
_
0.00
___
S..........3.0000_
S.
0.1328
. .........
........... .
S.................
0.2876
0.1618
1.50001
1.5240
x
....
L
Z
-Y
3.0000
_
0.5000
3.0000
3.0000
.
- __
S......
0.55090
1.2821
0.0000 ...........
0. 0000-
_
.
1.32071
0.50001
1.0000
..
.......
...
1.5000
1.00001
3.0000
3.0000
_
t1,
S
1 9494
1.4408
1.41431
000
.. . ..
l-
1.5000'
0.0000-z
_
.
2.13361
2.0000
30000
..
Station: 3.00
___
2.00001
._
1.52401
1.50721
1.0000
2.0000
Ix
----
_
-2.0000-
__
Station: 3.00
---
---
1.24521
-0.71441
1.5240
1.5239ý[
1.52351
-0.6350:
-0.6000-0.50001
1________________
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
4.0000
[__
1.5000
_
____
Page 2
____________
-0.6417_
_
_
Offsets
-.-.-.---
~-
-
4.0000i
______
____
j
.
.~~
1
4.0000
4.00001
I
____-4-.0000
1.0000
__4.000
_
___500
___
_
5.00001
________
K.-_5.00001
.
5.0000]
5.00001
____
1
____
_
_
_
5.0000
5.____
-SitI:,-
0.
0
-
5.0000
[
5.00001
______
5-0000
-__
5.0000
~
-
T
I
-
__
-
-
-.
___~.~
____
Station: 6.00
-_-_
_
_
_
_____
-0.630001____
-0.50000
0-.88901
-0.411100
1.0500
-0.6000
~
__
__
1.5240
-
-
-
1-
0
6ooo
1.0000
1.5240
1.2192
6o
I
_
_
___
-.
6.0000
______
____
I0000___
Page 3
f
-
_
-
0.0000
1.5240
__
____
0.00001
F
-
0000-
__
0.00001_
6.000-0
6.0000
6.00001
I
__
6.00001
_
_
-0.76201
0.5000
6.0000
_____
_______Y
1.52401
0.65000
1.5240[
____
_______
_______
-0.6344
-0A.600Q T
-0.63000 1
1
6.0000
_
_
__
_
152405
1_
5
1.5000
____
-
_
_
-01
6.00001
_
--.-.-..
10.63501
6.0000-_
6.0000
-..--.
1.520i010[0
1 .52401
1.0000
-.-.--
'.~ono1
___-
.
0.00001_
0.5000
0.5000
.OOQ
__
.........
1.5240
1.52401I
_
-_
--- 6.0000'-I
_
0.7144]
6 00}
~
0.0000
__[-1.0947
-6.0000
--
.-.---
____
_
___
1.I5000
50001.24521
-
---------------------.----
_
__
0.0000
5-1.0240
-
Station: 6.00
-
0.0000
5.0000
_
_____5.0000
-
0____
.5000
-___
151
_
5.0000
1
0.0000
1.52391
I
____5.0000
___
0 .0000
___1.2524
-.-.-
__
-0.7144
17
__
____5.0000
1__
1.24521
1.0000
__0000__
___
__
1.0240L-0.5000
50
-0.6000
ý-0.76201
1.09471
-1
4.00001
._.._..__---
____
0.O0000
-0.4111V__
___0.8890
......-
-
O.OOOOL
.52151
____4.0000
__
_
_
1.24521
-0.7144
.5000
-0.6417
_
1.524
-0.6350__
1.5239
1.5235
1.52151
-0.6000
-0.5000
0.0000]
_
0.88901
-0.0000]
_____
_
_
___
_
Offsets
_.
_
6.00001
1.0000Q
-0.4111
6.0000
1.0240
-0.5000
60000,
1.0510
1.0947
1.2452
-0.6000
-0.7620
-0.7144
_6,00001
___
__
Station: 7.00
6"0000
_
i!
4i7.oo
o
x
_
_
-.
..
.- j
_
y
-
_
~ 7.00001
7.000 01
.
7.00007
77.0000
.0000_
7.0000
4
i
•
_
-
7.0000
0
7.0
--
Station: 7.00
_x
i
!
,
... . . ..
-
.........
. .........
,. . . . .1
Stat§ion-:8..00 .
....
7.0000
-
.
0.0000
S0 .0000 1
.
_9 .
.
1.5240
0.5000
1.5240
1.00001
1.5240 ---
1.2192
'
.1
8.0000
8.0000
8 .0 00 0
~
8.0000
1
S ..
..
____
______
. . ._ . ____
. .
_
•___
-0.7144,
-0.6417-0 .6 3636
50
. . . .
.L
_
-
i
1.5215
0.8890
0.0000--0 - --0.0000
1.0000o-
1.0240
o.4111
-o.5ooo[
1.0510
1.0947
-0.60001
-0.7620
1.24521
-07144
0.0000
0.5000
1.0000
0.00006
.5 0 0 0
1.52401
1.52401
1.52401
0 . O0
0 00
0.50000[
0.50000
oooz
-
-_
_1
!
.
0.0000o
0.0000oo
o
1.52401
Sta ti on : 8 .00
-
~---------
I
___
____
-
j
2.000[
1.52401
8.0000
8.0000
S..
.......
... . ..
-
2.1336
- .
.
1.5000
-0.6350
8.0000
8.0000
8.0000!
1.0000
1.0240
-0.4111
-0 .5000
Page 4
.
-0.6417'
-0.6000
-0.5000
0.0000
_
_
-0.7144
1.5239
1.5235
1.5215
0.8890
_8.0000
1
- .-
___1.5240
__8.0000
S_
--
__1.24521
8.0000
______
____
_
Y
..
0ooL
1.5000
K-----8.00001
1.5240
-----
.
1.5239
-0.6000
1.5235 . ...- 0.5000
8.0000
8.0000,
8.0000
8.00001
- ------
-
.
xzY
S8.0000
S1
7.0000
7.0000
. . . ..
-
1.00001-
Z
. . .7.0000,--_
7.0000
. .
7.0000r
.__._-7.0000..
_
i
7.0000
. . ..
0.0000
1.2452
15000
.I
1 .5 2 4 0
SI--7.0000{
-
0.0000
_Y
4-. .. .
.. . ..
0
7.0000
7.0000!
- 770000
..
_
-
.Z
1.5000
1.5240
___7.0000
-
-_
_
.... .- . 0060•
... ......... .._
o_ ___,o
o--.... -:ýo.oo
ooo_
.... ...!
_..........t i
_
_
_
Offsets
___
-.
8.0000
-0.7620
1.24521
-0.7144_____
0.0000
9.00001
0.530001
1.60000
1.5000
1o
1.52401
1.52401
1.05 240
9.0000
1.5240
-.
__-
1-
_19.00001
9.000o
__.0000oi
---9.00001
-I-
~
---
l--.--.----
---.--..
11217000
I
_
--
--
~
---.
9.0000j
-1.5221
1
9.00001
9000--
0.8890
1000x10.0000
Staion
100
10
.1~.
_
_
_
_
_
_
I
--
--
I
V
10.0000
10.00001
j
10.0000
1
_____
____
--
--
____
i___
_
---
__
__1
0.6680
_
_
_
-
-0. 1234
__
_
o~oo
_
_
.0
0.7062
0.50070621
1.00001j0.70621i
1.5240
1.70000
1.52401
1.5240
0.5000111
____1.5240
_
_
2.1336
-
__
200
___
_
_
_
_
Z-__-
1.524
1,2573;
__
1.5240
2.00001~
_____
1.52401
2.1336F
Page 5
-_
0.0000
154
~10.6680
__
_
--.
10.66801
__-__
_
00001
x
.
-012
0.0000,
.
Station: 10.67
-
_
-
10.0000
-
-.
____
2.0000
0.9223
i10.0000
____
__
1.5000
__
1.5240._ 2.133611
I
10.00001
~l.
0.00000.5000
1.0000
_-jY--__
-_
___
-
___
.Q~
0.00001
1_
.5240j
.9.0000
-Stati~on:-9.00
_
_____
I__
___9,00001
_
-060001
1.09471
_____
I1~1I77__8.00001
~
Station: 9.00
1.05101
____8.00001
____
_
-
-
Appendix 10. LARC V Characteristics
LARC V:
,Charaicteristics, General .Arrvangements, Systems and,
Components, Propeller, Ruder, and Drive Train
79
APPENDIX t1
LARC V CHARACTERISTICS
The LARC V is a lightweight, aluminum hulled, terratired amphibious vehicle having moderate water speed and
good surfing ability. This vehicle is not suitable for-swampy terrain and is not mobile in heavily irrigated terrain. It is
suitable for transporting cargo from ship to shore, to beaches, or up fairly wide rivers and canals to semiprepared
landing areas.
Figure G-1. Lighter, Amphibious, Resupply, Cargo, 5 Ton (LARC V).
(a)
Length, overall ................................................
35 feet
(b)
Width, overall ............................................
10 feet
(c) Speed, loaded:
30 m iles per hour
8.7 knots per hour
........ ...........................
Land ..................
W ater ......................................................
(d) Operating range, loaded:
L and .............................
W ater . .............................................
.........................
.......
200 m iles
60 m iles
35'
(e) Fuel consumption (gallons per hour) ..............................
(1) Crew .......
...........................
20
.........
(g) Passenger capacities:
Norm al .....................................................
Em ergency ..................................................
2
0
20
(h) Cargo capacities:
Norm al ....................................
Maximum ..............................................
................
4.5 light tons
5 light tons
K44
0
W
~id
.--
~~CPA
It
LARC General Arrangements. bmp
-
Engine Access Hatch
PL
W
Storage Batteries
(Sep Nore 12)
HB MiaSter Cylinder Brakes
(See Note 83)
GE Converter Tiransmission
(See Note 2)
S
0
GAS -0
Universal Jo-ints
(See NottŽ 15
Stern, Iube and Strti )3earinqs
G AA
D
Steer ing Searing HouIsingr
W
655
GAA
S
Wiper Arm Shnft
l)$eta Note 14)
Tit- Rod Ena
GSA
V'J
GAA
Whe Pivot
D
H-vdr-auti eR;(i~qe Pumnp
WV GAA
GE
Trarvifs?er rrans.
S
A
(See Note 131)~ersj
Uriversal jlonts
Steering Gear Assernbiv
to~pe Note 11)
GAA
M
[See Note 4)
Rurdder Suooort Bearing
GO
zA,
/
".
j~
GS
GSA
,
lrn
i3i
i~'.See
Note
ifl
UE
ifversntil rarini isio
GA
iSee
'Jnivertsii Joint!, G AS,
;Ste Note 15)
Fikotr & Waet SernarIs)r
IFuel
Oi
Transmissiond
iGOSx~iNote
Cekdannnli
Hvcirstuic S'~e
L
i1I
7)
0'E
f-e
/
i speeNote 1)
G0~~)./1j~a
Riont Annle Oriveý.
-'
iwicco)
ri~
Norte 10)
0
.ar
L
Dwt~iptcik
nI
Engine Oil Filtere
OE
Bypass Oil fSee Note 5)
0i
GSAA
M
OE
Hydiraulic Biiye Pumr~p
E~tone
lae
Qi
(See Not
~ ~_____/
Iee Note 17)
VaCu uni Inridcator
(See Note 19)
CorrNosio
(3)-I~ro
I
Se
N
0
T
e,
sem6
a il '.npeisi
ri
'i
OE S
(See Note 711
Hydraulic System
F~iter
S nolne Oil
N"ote
15)
M
(See Notes 2 and13
rifi-
ye~Osonc
6Fill
Cooling SYSI(!m
Point
(Se" 'Note, 13)
ia nkcase
(8) IS COMPLETELY
NOTE: AFTER NUT
SHAFT, TIGHTEN
ONTO
SCREWED
"SLINGER SCREWS.
34
365
19
1
40
20,81 15
-2
10
..
..9
.
14
13
6,
~25.
/
- - ".2
I
S"
2-
-
Y301
4P~-37
393
38
.
121
LARO Ruder.bmp
n
I
-I'
/1
SI\\
-
.
o,
O
-
Ita
LARO Drive Train.bmp
Appendix 11. DPCA T Model Characteristics
Figure Al11.1 Steps In Modeling Dive Platform Catamaran (DPCAT)
Figure All 2.Concept of Dive Platform Catamaran (DPCAT)
88
Figure All .4 Concept of Variable Beam
Figure A11.5 DPCAT Land Mode
Figure Al1.6 DPCAT Contour Lines
89
Autoship: Upright Hydrostatics Report
DPCAT Characteristics
IDPCAT Transverse AreasOrigin Depth: 0.9000.
Weight Units: mt
Area Sq. m
Length Units: m
Sta.
Loc
0.62
0.6168
0.2192
Sta
0.9
0.8960
0.5043
1.18
.1.1752
1.45
_
Offset Half-Breadths
WL 2
WL 3
WL 4
WL 5
1.00
1813
1617
1568
1464
0.7593
1.00
2259
2455
2504
2608
1.4544'
1.0145
2.00
1494
1438
1426
1396
1.73
1.7336
2.00
2578
2634
2646
2676
2.01
2.29
2.57
2.85
2.0128
2.2920
2.571•
2.8504
1.2582
.1.5205
1.8159
2.1619
0.9672
3.00
3.13
3.41
3.69
3.1296,
3.40882
3.6880
3.97
4.25
4.53
4.8
5.08
5.36
5.64
5.92
6.2
6.48
6.76
3.9672
4.2464 4.5256
•4.8048
5.0840
5.363"
5.6424
5.921§.
6.200& /
6.4800
6.7592
1386
2686
1386
2686
1386
2686
1386
2686
1386
1386
2686
1386
2686
3.00
3.00
i386"
2036
1646
2686
1386
2036
1646
2686
0.9372
0:9372
2.3431
3.00 3.00
4.00
2036
2426
1386
2036
2426
1386
2.3431
2.3431
2.3431
2.3431
2.3431
.2.3431
2.3431
2.3431
2.3431
2.3431
0.9372.
4.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
6.00 '.
' 7.007.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00.
2686
1386
2686
1386
2686
1386
2036
1646
2686
2036
2426
2686
1386
2686
1386
2686
1386
2036
1646
2686
2036
2426
2686
1386
2686
1386
2686
1386,
26865
1386
2686
1386
2686
1386
2686
1386
2686
1386
2686
_
7.0384
7.3176ra
7.596&
7.8760
0.9372,
0.9372
0.9372
2.3431
8.00,
8.00,
9.00
9.00
0:18e
8.1552
8.4344
8.7136
8.9928
9.2720,
9.5512
9.8304
2.343t
2.3431
10.00
10.11
10.1096
_
_
3.00
7.04,
7.32
7.6
7.88
8.43
8.71
8.99
9.27
9.55
9.83
WL 1
.2.3431
2.3431.
2.0685
1.4696
,0.8707
0.2719
10.00
1386
2686
_
1-0.67
410.67
DPCATOUT Group
Surf: Bow
-Surf: Hull*1
Poly: TrIm2 of Bow Deck Plate
Poly:'AFT Cube
_
Page 1
Cube
2686
1386
2686
1
Group
Surf: BAEM AFT
Surf: BEAM FWD
Poly: Trim of Hull Side
Poly: FWD
1386
.
Surf: PLATFORM
Autoship: Upright Hydrostatics Report
Curve of Areas
Station
5.0a
0.0a
Area&
________
----
1
-
L
L
L
10.03
J
.I<x-0.
A
-
----LCB--
--
Dimensions:
L.O.A.
110.6680
L.W.L.
Immersed Length
Bmax.
15.3720
9.8825
FW Displacement
16.537 mt
0.0
9.8825
________
____
B.W.L.
16.54 cu.m.____
Immersed Volume
50.
-----
-----
5.3720
_____
SW Displacement
16.951 mt____
Centroids:_________I________
LCB
6.6692 (36.1 % af LCF
TCB
0.0000
_____Prismatic
0.484
Volume (Cv)
Areas:___
7.3937 (28.8 % aft)____
____
____I____
Coefficients:
Block (Cb) ]0.346
Midships (Cm)
j____
j0.4436
VCB
(Cp)
Waterplane (Cwp)
17.134
0.714
0.341
____
___
_______
___
__
Water Plane
18.093 sq.m
Wetted Surface
Ratios:__
79.076 sq.m____
___
L/B Ratio
1.840
D/L Ratio
_____476.513
immersion:, ,_I___II
Load Increment /Draft Increment
Metacentre-II
Transverse Radius
(BIVt
18.093
mt/rn
11.2124,m
_____________
Page 2
____
___
Autoship • Upright Hydrostatics Report
DPCAT Characteristics.
Length Units: m
Name
Group: DPCATout
Group: LARC
Bow
Hull*1
Trim of Hull Side
Trim2 of Bow Deck Plate
AFT Cube.
FWD Cube
Bow
Hull*1
Trim of Hull Side
Trim2'of BoW Deck Plate'
AFT Cube
FWD Cube
BAEM AFT
BEAM FWD
PLATFORM[
Group: LARC
Bow
HulI*I
Trim of Hull Side
Trim2 of Bow Deck Plate
AFT Cube
"FWD'Cu'be _
_
Bow
Hull*1
Trim of Hull Side
Trim2 of Bow Deck Plate
AFT Cube
FWD Cube
BAEM AFT
BEAM.FWD
PLATFORM
Weight Units: mt
Volume Units. cu.m.
Material
Spqr
Area
Volume
Weight
Thickness'
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
AFT Machinery
FWD Machinery
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
AlUminum
AFT Machinery
FWD Machinery
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
2.71
2.71
2.71
2.71
65
40
2.71
2.71
2.71
2.71
65
40
2.71
2.71
2.71,
5.5728
13.2454
11.5834
1.5170
3.0987
3.0987
5.5728
13.2454
11.5834
1.5170
3.0987
3.0987
1.5000
1.5000
6.4389
0.0351
0.0841
0.0736
0.0096
0.0197
0.0197
0.0351
0.0841
0.0736
0.0096
0.0197
0.0197
0.0150
0.0150
0.0406
0.095
0.228
0.199
0.026
1.279
0.787
0.095
0.228
0.199
0.026
1.279
0.787
0.041
0.041
0.110
0.0063
0.0064
0.0064
0.0064
0.0064
0.0064
0.0063
0.0064
0.0064
0.0064
0.0064
0.0064
0.0100
0.0100
0.0063
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
'Aluminum
AFT Machinery
FWD Machinery
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
AFT Machinery
FWD Machinery
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
2.71
2.71
2.71
'2.71
65
40
2.71
2.71
2.71
2.71
65
40
2.71
2.71
2.71
5.5728
13.2454
11.5834
1.5170
3.0987
3.0987
5.5728
13.2454
1.1.5834
1.5170
3.0987
3.0987
1.5000
1.5000
6.4389
0.0351
0.0841
0.0736
0.0096
0.0197
0.0351
0.0841
0.0736
0.0096
0.0197
0.0197
0.0150
0.0150
0.0406
0.095
0.228
0.199
0.026
1.279
0.787
0.095
0.228
0.199
0.026
1.279
0.787
0.041
0.041
0.110
0.0063
0.0064
0.0064
0.0064
0.0064
0.0064
0.0063
0.0064'
0.0064
0.0064
0.0064
0.0064
0.0100
0.0100
0.0063
171.3419
1.1082
10.841
Totals
Centroid(m):
x: 5.5981
Y: 0.0000 Z: 0.5911
Page 3
0.0197
Autoship Upright Hydrostatics Report
DPCAT Characteristics
Length Units: mm
Station Locations
Sta
Loc.
0.00
0
1.00
1000
2.00
2000
3.00
3000
4.00
4000
5.00
5000
6.00
6000
7.00
7000
8.00
8000
9.00
9000
10.00
10000
10:67
10668
Offset Heights
Sta
Butt 1
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1219
3.00
4.00
1219
5.00
1219
6.00
1219
•7.00"
1219
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
10.00
Buttocks
Butt
Loc.
Butt 1
-600
Butt 2
-500
Butt 3
0
Butt 4
500
Butt 5
1000
Butt 6
,1500
Butt 7
1778
Waterlines
WL
Loc.
WL 1
0
WL 2
500
WL 3
1000
WL 4
1500
WL 5
2000
End1.x
2667
2667
2667
2667
2667
2667
2667
Endl.z
1219'
1219
1219
1219
1219
1218
1218
End2.x
7620
7620
7620
7620
7620
2667
7620
End2.z
1219
1219
1219
1219
1219
1218
913
Endlx
2661
760
293
117
22"
Endl.y,
-2023
-2036
-2036
-2036
-2036'
End2.x
9145
7620
7590
10668
10668
End2.y
-1386
-2036
-1500
-1386
-1386
Butt 7
547
2132
173
2132
1218
913
1218
1218
1218
1218
913
2132
2132
2132
705
Butt 2
Butt 3
Butt 4
Butt 5
1219
1219
1219
1219
Butt 6
1871
2132
483
2132
1218
1219
1219
1219
1219
1219
1219
1219
1219
1219
1219
1219
1219
1219
1219
1219
1219'
1218
1218
1218
1218
2132
2132
2132
705
Page 4
Sta
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
4:00
5,00
6.00
7.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
10.00
Appendix 12Z DPCA T Resistance & Effective Power Calculations
F77Trv
Ctamaran~
fMediodir -Citamairn
:
F~asftCkaMafan .
1mLrJ4 .
DPLAT
~"'4~~
;:4.4
6_96
M~e
o&
-5 -13.90
'
It
WOR
0488
L44
~
A~.1
i~4
f
0.34
~
C4
'ID
023,
6!I~~itii3
'-
75
000
0004~D0#P~po
LAWNOdr~it
0'xp~p
-4
Table
A
1
4
VeRAMP, 0.00
:U-5.79:.
FP
44,4
Ar Rzttanu.0.1000
4-
4-,:
LD-57
goreh~i~hft($..(~
e.
wiharo1phr
DNMUN,
apeDCTATPWRCluain
twin94
.0
4
I.4
I~0I.I1
nu
(Ii-0
t-2 N
)p
C
*. .
4)
CL
CACO
u0)
-ORu
U-
CL
CD
E
m
uI
E EE E E
0
i
E 4)
0 t 0
'
~
L
E E CN0(4 N § C
E
E
o oE
E
0
00
(0
c
0
0
-
3
.2C
'02~
X .20
X- a~C
Eo'
(a
E.za.1I=
2o(
'a 'D L
'1'
0 0
0*
-----------------0
C
0:
CL
--.
- ~----C0
o
0
0
U (6
N
v-: t-
C 0)
CL c co
J CO 0M (14- 0-
CD
U
~ Cr)
CN LO M~ ;r LO (D
LO 1,- 0
0(
M OC)0
CO'40)C 0)
(N)
~r
-LN.
0
CD
Y
) CO 04 ('-T0
l '4V- U) t-
0)
Cr) 0D 00 v.
O
0)
CD1- 0 CD
0)('
MW CO
a-
w
CN I,- U) (0 (00co.
0)U
ý-T CD
-
Cl LO CD LOC
(
wJ m' w) 'm) 0l l)
I-)N
CO CN P- N
0
U
4-'
(N
U).
CD
~)0U
~ 01,~ D~0 ~ ~0
~
0
NU)-M CD CD 0
CD
C.C)C
)~
ý
C
M-
-NN.NC
D(
M U))DD-N
aN
(W)
~0
0)
%
CD ý >
M
0
0' 0 C
MN
CD
~~ E
----
E- E
E
N
-)oEE
)
0)
N
NN
(m
D E'
N
N
CN
0'C-4C)C)C)C'
C')
'
'
'
E
E
Q)5aE
'q
V-
0)
1
cmz
Cf)
00
r
a)a
0
.2
Eo
0o
IL
0
U0UN. E
40
'))0)
0
_
A
iE
X
a)
66 cm E 0)
A-
(D
Ge.S90-~
x
-j
<
B<
~
DSwmm
-U rE = -r-
z3M.w
0C,~
0
0
C)
)U~jV),
-
-
0
<>
0 -
CL
R
o
E
0
W
aaaa
a)
V0
C)
m
-zC
W
< a)
0
ILO
40
-Xi:--
- ---
-
0
A
S0
CJ--
*
-
-
!-. ....
> i'
C
An Z
a)
LL
0)
o i
6
U)a)
C
6
0
; 6
-CeJ
'N
14 C e C
i
i C c
6
c
6C
ýý00000000000
*'90000000000
4)
a)
E E E,
(3) U-
_
,ý O
ce 00
Ci6
LOC
0_l
f0
c c
i
)
m
C) z
Ce0) 1 -
0 0
E6
0
00c
r o, ww: : :*:
E
C
a)i
E
u
z~im
a)..iOHI~fm<
c
CDW
mV~
CI
_880
_.
_a
_a
ci
a
wcn
a
o
66
C'4C
6CQ6
46
CJC
66
*0z*
u .
I-.
0
ci)
. .
66 666
LO
U
0)
6666
I-.c
60,
6"
*66
6
ooý6
0
i
i)
i
66c
o
L6
'-
C14 Ci
'-
(6 r-ý co a)
CL
~ >O
0
C'.
L6~
0N)
ce0
t CO
-
0
0
)o-
Y
0-0T
LO
0'
6
0
c,-iu
-
dýeC=; do
00
4C%
00
2~~~a
'~~~
0~~m
0
6
0
E-.~
0O
E-
0ro
a).
oL
)
0)a
-CCO
6
-a
%-mu
<
-
'3
)(Dm0000
--
0
L
Cc
U
ZZIt
0
42
00
o
C:~)OO
0
%022>,
>,
U)
m w
a) a))
_L
00.
a)
~o
o
0
00
CNN
to
00c
OM0
Co -
*
0
0
-
- -------------
M MM0'T VV
L
0o.
0i
>
LL
aI-
,1,
ýN
o
0
a)a
Y
ILL I
zY
U)
diL
0
0
o0 i
-'-
1
' OJOc
oc
l I RO
3
D0
)C
0
N N(
=
*c
;c
666ci.
1
)0I
c)0vz0Mr
-()t-
0(Y
C' "
ooo0
Lic
C:
,r:
)(C
U)OU
a)0
O
v
CL
>
-
0 L' 00
00
:~~~Q000L
0
0
6qrJO CJ
t 0!-)
0
04O
C'
00 0EEEo 00
0
0
0 0
N
0
)
000000000c
)a
00000
00
T)D
6C 6
Z
00 0
C~EO
IL
o
n0000
0
00000e
'~ c60u c
~
0
I
0
2-
0
<i
r
cm<d
E
12
.2~a
0
.0~i
cc-
mi E
*0 _
Cii
CL~id
~~0-
E
2-Q
Lm
~
0~ 0dd
))
EiCM
U-
_0
a_ C
d~
u>
diD
-iid
>U
a0
CL<E
WOow)CC
d
di
E
oo0C
C
00L
c
4
8
8
----------
Lo
---------------
-
-- -
N--
a.a0
.. ....
dod
to0
---------
----
0
0 )
6
V-T
TCOG
4CO
- -
00
6
00Mr6
4C OCO
0)LOCN 9 D C
VCLO
L
O0
r
'rNN - --
L
U-
'.9
N_
o4-
_
q00 qq
--
0
N
M
1-
O(
mvVO
000000000000
.6 6
MV o 6
1-
-
-
M
v j 6 -c6
0
-
N
0Q0'0
0vo'
M0
-
Tr0
LflLo
c6i.
'1-'-~
CL
U)
10
0
0)
000
C) C)
0~cEic
Z
o
6
---
Ti0
04
66
00
LO
(aOoE
N0 m
<
o)
C)
=
0
c
0
O-&Qi ~
~
~
a)a
)-0
<
0L
w x
=
: CLQJ0~H~~mC_
~
<
0
oa 00
fl.
C00.
0.
-
C.L
-I -------- -
-
r4
40
to~
1X1
LnU
-
--- -------